





■% 


A BRIEF EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY 


ON 

THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY, 

In an Essay, first published in the Religious Herald, and republished by request: wit h 
Remarks on a Letter of Elder Galusha, of New York, to Dr. R. Fuller, of South 
Carolina: By Thornton Stringfellow. 


Locust Grove, Culpeper Co., Va., 1841 . 
Brother Sands: 

Circumstances exist among the inhabit- 
ants of“ these United States, which make 
it proper that the Scriptures should be 
carefully examined by Christians in refer¬ 
ence to the institution of Slavery, which 
exists in several of the States, with the 
approbation of those who profess unlimited 
subjection to God’s revealed will. 

It is branded by one portion of people, 
who take their rules of moral rectitude from 
the Scriptures, as a great sin ; nay, the 
greatest of sins that exist in the nation. 
And they hold the obligation to extermi¬ 
nate it, to be paramount to all others. 

If slavery be thus sinful, it behooves all 
Christians who are involved in the sin, to 
repent in dust and ashes, and wash their 
hands of it, without consulting with flesh 
and blood. Sin in the sight of God is 
something which God in his Word makes 
known to be wrong, either by preceptive 
prohibition, by principles of moral fitness, 
or examples of inspired men, contained 
in the sacred volume. When these furnish 
no law to condemn human conduct, there 
is no transgression. Christians should 
produce a “ thus saith the Lord,” both for 
what they condemn as sinful, and for what 
they approve as lawful, in the sight ol 
Heaven. 

It is to be hoped, that on a question of 
such vital importance as this to the peace 
and safety of our common country, as well 
as to the welfare of the church, we shall 
be seen cleaving to the Bible, and taking 
all our decisions about this matter, from 
its inspired pages. With men from the 
North, I have observed for many years a 
palpable ignorance of the divine will, in 
reference to the institution of slavery. I 


have seen but a few, who made the Bible 
their study, that had obtained a knowledge 
of what it did reveal on this subject. Of 
late, their denunciation of slavery as a sin, 
is loud and long. 

I propose, therefore, to examine the 
sacred volume briefly, and if I am not 
greatly mistaken, I shall be able to make 
it appear that the institution of slavery has 
received, in the first place, 

1st. The sanction of the Almighty in 
the Patriarchal age. 

2d. That it was incorporated into the 
only National Constitution which ever 
emanated from God. 

3d. That its legality was recognized, 
and its relative duties regulated, by Jesus 
Christ in his kingdom ; and 

4th. That it is full of mercy. 

Before I proceed further, it is necessary 
that the terms used to designate the thing, 
be defined. It is not a name, but a thing, 
that is denounced as sinful; because it is 
supposed to be contrary to, and prohibited 
by, the Scriptures. 

Our translators have used the term ser¬ 
vant, to designate a state in which persons 
were serving, leaving us to gather the re¬ 
lation, between the party served and the 
party rendering the service, from other 
terms. The term slave, signifies with 
us, a definite state, condition, or relation, 
which state, condition, or relation, is 
precisely that one which is denounced 
as sinful. This state, condition, or rela¬ 
tion, is that in which one human being 
is held without his consent by another, 
as property; to be bought, sold, and 
transferred, together with the increase, as 
property, forever. Now, this precise thing, 
is denounced by a portion of the people 
of these United States as the greatest 








2 


individual and national sin that is among 
us, and is thought to be so hateful in the 
sight of God, as to subject the nation to 
ruinous judgment^, if it be not removed. 
Now, I propose to show, from the Scrip¬ 
tures, that this state, condition, or relation, 
did exist in th e patriarchal age , and that 
the persons most extensively involved in 
the sin, if it be a sin, are the very persons 
who have been singled out by the Almighty 
as the objects of his special regard—whose 
character and conduct he has caused to 
be held up as models for future generations. 
Before we conclude slavery to be a thing 
hateful to God, and a great sin in his sight, 
it is proper that we should search the 
records he has given us with care, to see 
in what light he has looked upon it, and 
find the warrant, for concluding that we 
shall honor him by efforts to abolish it; 
which efforts, in their consequences, may 
involve the indiscriminate slaughter of the 
innocent and the guilty, the master and 
the servant. We all believe him to be a 
Being who is the same yesterday, to-day, 
and forever. 

The first recorded language which was 
eve uttered in relation to slavery, is the 
inspired language ofNoah. In God’s stead 
he says, “ Cursed be Canaan “ a servant 
of servants shall he be to his brethren.” 

“ Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and 
Canaan shall be his servant.” “ God 
shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell 
in the tents of Shenr; and Canaan shall be 
his servant.” Gen. ix. 25, 26, 27. Here 
language is used, showing the favor which 
God would exercise to the posterity of 
Shem and Japheth, while they were hold¬ 
ing the posterity of Ham in a state of ab¬ 
ject bondage. May it not be said in truth, 
that God decreed this institution before it 
existed ; and has he not connected its 
existence, with prophetic tokens of special 
favor, to those who should be slave owners 
or masters ? He is the same God now, 
that he was when he gave these views of 
his moral character to the world ; and un¬ 
less the posterity of Shem and Japheth, 
from whom have sprung the Jews, and all 
the nations of Europe and America, and 
a great part of Asia, (the African race that 
is in them excepted,)—I say, unless they 
are all dead, as well as the Canaanites or 
Africans, who descended from Ham, then 
it is quite possible that his favor may now 
be found with one class of men, who are 
holding another class in bondage. Be this 
as it may, God decreed slavery —and shows 


in that decree, tokens of good-will to the 

master. The sacred records occupy but a 
short space from this inspired ray on this 
subject, until they bring to our notice a 
man, that is held upas a model, in all that 
adorns human nature, and as one that 
God delighted to honor. This man is 
Abraham, honored in the sacred records 
with the appellation, “Father” of the 
“ faithful.” Abraham was a native of Ur 
of the Chaldees. From thence the Lord 
called him to go to a country which he 
would show him ; and he obeyed, not 
knowing whither he went. He stopped 
for a time at Haran, where his father died. 
From thence he “ took Sarai his wife, 
and Lot his brother’s son, and all their 
substance, that they had gathered, and the 
souls they had gotten in Haran, and they 
went forth to go into the land ot Canaan.” 
Gen. xii. 5. 

All the ancient Jewish-writers of note, 
and Christian commentators agree, that 
by the “ souls they had gotten in Haran,” 
as our translators render it, are meant their 
slaves, or those persons they had bought 
with their money in Haran. In a tew 
years after their arrival in Canaan, Lot 
with all he had was taken captive. So 
soon as Abraham heard it, he armed three 
hundred and eighteen slaves that were 
born in his house, and retook him. How 
great must have been the entire slave fam¬ 
ily, to produce at this period of Abraham’s 
life, such a number of young slaves able 
to bear arms. Gen. xiv. 14. 

Abraham is constantly held up in the 
sacred story as the subject of great dis¬ 
tinction among the princes and sovereigns 
of the countries in which he sojourned. 
This distinction was on account of his 
great wealth. When he proposed to buy 
a burying-ground at Sarah’s death of the 
children of Heth, he stood up and spoke 
with great humility of himself as “ a 
stranger and sojourner among them,” 
(Gen. xxiii. 4,) desirous to obtain a bury¬ 
ing-ground. But in what light do they 
look upon him ? “ Hear us, my Lord, 

thou art a mighty prince among us.” 
Gen. xxiii. 6. Such is the light in which 
they viewed him. What gave a man such 
distinction, among such a people ? Not 
moral qualities, but great wealth, and its 
inseparable concomitant, power. When 
the famine drove Abraham to Egypt, he 
received the highest honors of the reign¬ 
ing sovereign. This honor at Pharaoh’s 
court was called forth by the visible tokens 





















3 


of immense wealth. In Genesis xii. 15, 
16, we have the honor that was shown to 
him, mentioned, with a list of hisproperty , 
which is given in these words, in the 16th 
verse: “He had sheep, and oxen, and he- 
asses, and men-servants, and maid-serv¬ 
ants, and she-asses, and camels.” The 
amount of his flocks may be inferred from 
the number of slaves employed in tending 
them. They were those he brought from 
Ur of the Chaldees, of whom the three 
hundred and eighteen were born ; those 
gotten in Haran, where he dwelt for a short 
time ; and those which he inherited from 
his father, who died in Haran. When 
Abraham went up from Egypt, it is stated 
in Genesis xiii. 2, that he was “ very rich,” 
not only in flocks and slaves , but in “ silver 
and gold ” also. 

After the destruction of Sodom, we see 
him sojourning in the kingdom of Gerar. 
Here he received from the sovereign of 
the country, the honors of equality ; and 
Abimelech, the king, (as Pharaoh had 
done before him,) seeks Sarah for a wife, 
under the idea that she was Abraham’s 
sister. When his mistake was discovered, 
he made Abraham a large present. Rea¬ 
son will tell us, that in selecting the items 
of this present, Abimelech was governed 
by the visible indications of Abraham’s 
preference in articles of wealth—and that 
above all, he would present him with 
nothing which Abraham’s sense of morai 
obligation would not allow him to own. 
Abimelech’s present is thus described in 
Gen. xx. 14, 16: “And Abimelech took 
sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and j 
women-servants, and a thousand pieces of 
silver, and >gave them unto Abraham.” 
This present discloses to us what consti¬ 
tuted the most highly-prized items of 
wealth, among these eastern sovereigns in 
Abraham’s day. 

God had promised Abraham’s seed the 
land of Canaan, and that in his seed all the 
nations of the earth should be blessed. 
He reached the age of 85, and his wife the 
age of 75, while as yet, they had no child, i 
At this period, Sarah’s anxiety for the 
promised seed, in connection with her 
age, induced her to propose a female slave 
of the Egyptian stock, as a secondary wife, 
from which to obtain the promised seed. 
This alliance soon puffed the slave with 
pride, and she became insolent to her 
mistress—the mistress complained to 
Abraham, the master. Abraham ordered 
Sarah to exercise her authority. Sarah did 


so, and pushed it to severity, and the slave 
absconded. The divine oracles inform 
us, that the angel of God found this run¬ 
away bond-woman in the wilderness ; and 
if God had commissioned this angel to 
improve this opportunity of teaching the 
world how much he abhorred slavery, he 
took a bad plan to accomplish it. For, 
instead of repeating a homily upon doing 
to others as we “would they should do 
unto us,” and heaping reproach upon 
Sarah, as a hypocrite, and Abraham as a 
tyrant, and giving Hagar direction how 
she might get into Egypt, from whence 
(according to Abolitionism) she had been 
unrighteously sold into bondage, the angel 
addressed her as “ Hagar, Sarah’s maid,” 
Gen. xvi. 1—9; (thereby recognizing the 
relation of master and slave,) and asks 
her, “whither wilt thou go?” and she 
said “ I flee from the face of my mistress.” 
Quite a wonder she honored Sarah so 
much as to call her mistress ; but she 
knew nothing of abolition, and God by 
his angel did not become her teacher. 

We have now arrived at what may be 
called an abuse of the institution, in which 
one person is the property of another, and 
under their control, and subject to their 
authority without their consent; and if 
the Bible be the book, which proposes to 
furnish the case which leaves it without 
doubt that God abhors the institution, here 
we are to look for it. What, therefore, is 
the doctrine in relation to slavery, in a 
case in which a rigid exercise of its arbi- 
trary authority is called forth upon a help¬ 
less female ; who might use a strong plea 
for protection, upon the ground of being 
the master’s wife. In the face of this case, 
which is hedged around with aggravations 
as if God designed by it to awaken all the 
sympathy and all the abhorrence of that 
portion of mankind, who claim to have 
more mercy than God himself—but I say, 
in view of this strong case, what is the 
doctrine taught ? Is it that God abhors 
the institution of slavery ; that it is a re¬ 
proach to good men; that the evils of 
the institution can no longer be winked 
at among saints ; that Abraham’s character 
must not be transmitted to posterity, with 
this stain upon it; that Sarah must no 
longer be allowed to live a stranger to the 
abhorrence God has for such conduct as 
she has been guilty of to this poor help¬ 
less female? I say, what is the doctrine 
taught? Is it so plain that it can be easily 
understood? and does God teach that she 















4 


is a bond-woman or slave, and that she 
is to recognize Sarah as her mistress, and 
not her equal—that she must return and 
submit herself unreservedly to Sarah’s 
authority? Judge for yourself, reader, by 
the angel’s answer: “And the angel of 
the Lord said unto her. Return unto thy 
mistress, and submit thyself under her 
hands.” Gen. xvi. 9. 

But, says the spirit of abolition, with 
which the Bible has to contend, you are 
building your house upon the sand, for 
these were nothing but hired servants; and 
their servitude designates no such state, 
condition, or relation, as that, in which one 
person is made the property of another, to 
be bought, sold, or transferred forever. To 
this, we have two answers in reference to 
the subject, before giving the law. In the 
first place, the term, servant, in the sched¬ 
ules of property among the patriarchs, 
does designate the state, condition, or rela¬ 
tion in which one person is the legal prop¬ 
erty of another, as in Gen. xxiv. 35, 36. 
Here Abraham’s servant, who had been 
sent by his master to get a wife for his son 
Isaac, in order to prevail with the woman 
and her family, states, that the man for 
whom he sought a bride, was the son of a 
man whom God had greatly blessed with 
riches; which he goes on to enumerate 
thus, in the 35th verse : “ He hath given 
him docks, and herds, and silver, and gold, 
and men-servants, and maid-servants, and 
camels, and asses;” then in verse 36th, he 
state the disposition his master had made of 
his estate : “ My master’s wife bare a son 
to my master when she was old, and 
unto him he hath given all that he hath.” 
Here, servants are enumerated with silver 
and gold as part of the patrimony. And, 
reader, bear it in mind ; as if to rebuke the 
doctrine of abolition, servants are not only 
inventoried as property, but as property 
which God had given to Abraham. After 
the death of Abraham, we have a view of 
Isaac at Gerar, when he had come into the 
possession of this estate ; and this is the 
description given of him : “ And the man 
waxed great, and went forward, and grew 
until he became very great; for he had pos¬ 
session of flocks, and possession of herds, 
a.nd great store of servants .” Gen. xxvi. 
13, 14. This state, in which servants are 
made chattels, he received as an inherit¬ 
ance from his father, and passed to his son 
Jacob. 

Again, in Gen. xvii., we are informed 
of a covenant God entered into with Abra¬ 


ham; in which he stipulates, to be a God 
to him and his seed, (not his servants,) and 
to give to his seed the land of Canaan for 
an everlasting possession. He expressly 
stipulates, that Abraham shall put the token 
of this covenant upon every servant born 
in his house, and upon every servant bought 
with his money of any stranger. Gen. xvii. 
12, 13. Here again servants are properly. 
Again, more than 400 years afterwards, we 
find the seed of Abraham, on leaving 
Egypt, directed to celebrate the rite, that 
was ordained as a memorial of their de¬ 
liverance, viz : the Passover, at which time 
the same institution which makes property 
of men and women , is recognized, and the 
servant bought with money, is given the 
privilege of partaking, upon the ground of 
his being circumcised by his master , while 
the hired servant, over whom the master 
had no such control, is excluded until he 
voluntarily submits to circumcision; show¬ 
ing clearly that the institution of involun¬ 
tary slavery then carried with it a right, on 
the part of a master to choose a religion for 
the servant who was his money, as Abra¬ 
ham did, by God’s direction, when he im¬ 
posed circumcision on those he had bought 
with his money,—when he was circum¬ 
cised himself, with Ishmael his son, who 
was the only individual, beside himself, on 
whom he had a right to impose it, except 
the bond-servants bought of the stranger 
with his money, and their children born in 
his house. The next notice we have of 
servants as property, is from God himself, 
when clothed with all the visible tokens of 
his presence and glory on the top ofSinai, 
when he proclaimed his law to the millions 
that surrounded its base : “ Thou shalt not 
covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not 
covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-serv¬ 
ant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor 
his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.” 
Ex. xx. 17. Here, is a patriarchal catalogue 
of property, having God for its author, the 
wife among the rest, who was then pur¬ 
chased, as Jacob purchased his two, by 14 
years’ service. Here, the term servant, as 
used by the Almighty, under the circum¬ 
stances of the case could not be understood 
by these millions, as meaning anything but 
property, because the night they left Egypt, 
a few weeks before, Moses, by divine au¬ 
thority, recognized their servants as pro¬ 
perty, which they had bought with their 
money. 

2d. In addition to the evidence from the 
context of these, and various other places, 













5 


to prove the term servant to be identical in 
the import of its essential particulars with 
the term slave among us, there is unques¬ 
tionable evidence, that, in the patriarchal 
age, there are two distinct states of servi¬ 
tude alluded to, and which are indicated 
by two distinct terms, or by the same term, 
and an adjective to explain. 

These two terms, are first, servant or 
bond-servant; second, hireling or hired 
servant: the first, indicating involuntary 
servitude; the second, voluntary servitude 
for stipulated wages and a specifiedtime. 
Although this admits of the clearest proof 
under the law, yet it admits of proof before 
the law was given. On the night the Is¬ 
raelites left Egypt, which was before the 
law was given, Moses, in designating the 
qualifications necessary for the passover, 
uses this language, Exod. xii. 44, 45: 
“Every man’s servant that is bought for 
money, when thou hast circumcised him, 
then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner 
andan hired servant shall not eat thereof.” 
This language carries to the human mind, 
with irresistible force, the idea of two dis¬ 
tinct states —one a state of freedom, the 
other a state of bondage: in one of which, 
a person is serving with his consent for 
wages; in the other of which, a person 
is serving without his consent, according 
to his master’s pleasure. 

Again, in Job iii., Job expresses the 
strong desire he had been made by his 
afflictions to feel, that he had died in his 
infancy. “ For now,’.’ says he, “ should I 
'have lain still and been quiet, I should 
have slept: then had I been at rest. There 
(meaning the grave) the wicked cease 
from troubling, and there the weary be at 
rest. There the prisoners rest together; 
they hear not the voice of the oppressor. 
The small and the great are there; and the 
servant is free from his master.” Job iii. 
11, 13, 17, 18, 19. Now, I ask any com¬ 
mon-sense man to account for the expres¬ 
sion in this connection, “ there the ser¬ 
vant is free from his master.” Afflictions 
are referred to, arising out of states or 
conditions , from w hich ordinarily nothing 
but death brings relief. Death puts an 
end to afflictions of body that are incura¬ 
ble, as he took his own to be, and there¬ 
fore he desired it. 

The troubles brought on good men by 
a wicked, persecuting world, last for life ; 
but in death the wicked cease from troub¬ 
ling,— death ends that relation or state out 

o ' _ t 

of which such troubles grow. The pris¬ 


oners of the oppressors, in that age, stood 
in a relation to their oppressor, which led 
the oppressed to expect they would hear 
the voice of the oppressor until death. But 
death broke the relation , and was desired, 
because in the grave they would hear his 
voice no more. 

All the distresses growing out of in¬ 
equalities in human condition ; as wealth 
and power on one side, and poverty and 
weakness on the other, were terminated 
by death; the grave brought both to a 
level: the small and the great are there, 
and there, (that is, in the grave,) he adds, 
the servant is free from his master; made 
so, evidently, by death. The relation , or 
state , out of which his oppression had 
arisen, being destroyed by death, he would 
be freed from them, because he would, by 
death, be freed from his master who in¬ 
flicted them. This view of the case, and 
this oidy, will account for the use of such 
language. But upon a supposition that a 
state or relation among men is referred to, 
that is voluntary, such as that between a 
hired servant and his employer, that can be 
| dissolved at the pleasure of the servant, 
the language is without meaning, and 
perfectly unwarranted; while such a rela¬ 
tion as that of involuntary and hereditary 
servitude, where the master had unlimitea 
power over his servant, and in an age when 
cruelty was common, there is the great¬ 
est propriety in making the servant, or 
slave, a companion with himself, in afflic¬ 
tion, as well as the oppressed and afflicted, 
in every class, where death alone dissolved 
| the state, or condition, out of which their 
afflictions grew. Beyond all doubt, this 
language refers to a state of hereditary 
bondage, from the afflictions of which, or¬ 
dinarily, nothing in that day brought re¬ 
lief but death. 

Again, in chapter 7th, he goes on to 
defend himself in his eacrer desire for 

o 

death, in an address to God. He says, it is 
natural for a servant to desire the shadow, 
and a hireling his wages: “As the serv 
ant earnestly desireth the shadow, and 
as the hireling looketh for the reward of 
his work,” so it is with me, should be 
supplied. Job vii. 2. Now, with the 
previous light shed upon the use and 
meaning of these terms in the patriarchal 
Scriptures, can any man of candor bring 
himself to believe that two states or con¬ 
ditions are not here referred to, in one of 
which,,the highest reward after toil is mere 
rest; in the other of which, the reward 
















6 


was wages1 And how appropriate is the j 
language in reference to these two states. | 

The slave is represented as earnestly 
desiring the shadow, because his condition 
allowed him no prospect of anything more 
desirable ; but the hireling as looking for 
the reward of his work , because that will 
be an equivalent for his fatigue. 

So Job looked at death, as being to his 
body as the servant’s shade , therefore he 
desired it; and like the hireling's wages, 
because beyond the grave , he hoped to reap 
the fruit of his doings. Again, Job (xxxi.) 
finding himself the subject of suspicion 
(see from verse 1 to 30) as to the recti¬ 
tude of his past life, clears himself of va¬ 
rious sins, in the most solemn manner, as 
unchastity, injustice in his dealings, adul¬ 
tery, contempt of his servants, unkind¬ 
ness to the poor, covetousness, the pride 
of wealth, &-c. And in the 13th, 14th, 
and 15th verses, he thus expresses him¬ 
self: “ If I did despise the cause of my 
man-servant or my maid-servant, when 
they contended with me, what then shall 
I do when God rises up ? and when he 
visiteth, what shall I answer him ? Did 
not he that made me in the womb, make 
him ? And did not one fashion us in the 
womb?” Taking this language in con¬ 
nection with the language employed by 
Moses, in reference to the institution ol 
involuntary servitude in that age, and es¬ 
pecially in connection with the language 
which Moses employs after the law was 
given, and what else can be understood 
than a reference to a class of duties that 
slave owners felt themselves above stoop¬ 
ing to notice or perform, but which, nev¬ 
ertheless, it was the duty of the righteous 
man to discharge; for, whatever proud 
and wicked men might think of a poor 
servant that stood in his estate, on an 
equality with brutes, yet, says Job, he 
that made me made them, and if I des¬ 
pise their reasonable causes of complaint, 
for injuries which they are made to suffer, 
and for the redress of which I only can be 
appealed to, then what shall" I do, and 
how shall I fare, when I carry my causes 
of complaint to him who is my master, 
and to whom only I can go for relief? 
When he visiteth me for despising their 
cause, what shall I answer him for despi¬ 
sing mine ? He means that he would feel 
self-condemned, and would be forced to 
admit the justice of the retaliation. But 
on the supposition that allusion is had 
to hired servants, who were voluntarily 


working for wages agreed upon, and who 
were the subjects of rights, for the protec¬ 
tion of which their appeal would be to 
“ the judges in the gate,” as much as any 
other class of men, then there is no point 
in the statement. For doing that which 
can be demanded as a legal right, gives us 
no claim to the character of merciful ben¬ 
efactors. Job himself was a great slave¬ 
holder, and, like Abraham, Isaac, and Ja¬ 
cob, won no small portion of his claims 
to character with God and men from the 
manner in which he discharged his duty 
to his slaves. Once more: the conduct ot 
Joseph in Egypt, as Pharaoh's counsellor, 
under all the circumstances, proves him a 
friend to absolute slavery, as a form of gov¬ 
ernment better adapted to the state ot the 
world at that time, than the one which 
existed in Egypt; for certain it is, that he 
peaceably effected a change in the funda¬ 
mental law, by which a stale, condition , 
or relation, between Pharaoh and the 
Egyptians was established, which answers 
to the one now denounced as sinful in 
the sight of God. Being warned of God, 
he gathered up all the surplus grain in the 
years of plenty, and sold it out in the years 
of famine, until he gathered up all the 
money; and when money failed, the Egyp¬ 
tians came and said, “Give us bread;” 
and Joseph said, “Give your cattle, and 
I will give for your cattle, if money fail.” 
When that year was ended, they came 
unto him the second year, and said, 
“There is not aught left insight of my Lord, 
but our bodies arid our lands. Buy us 
and our lands for bread.” And Joseph 
bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh. 

So the land became Pharaoh’s, and as 
for the people, he removed them to cities, 
from one end of the borders of Egypt, 
even to the other end thereof. Then Jo¬ 
seph said unto the people, “Behold! I 
have bought you this day, and your land 
for Pharaoh;” and they said, “we will be 
Pharaoh’s servants.” See Gen. xlvii. 14, 
16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25. Having thus 
changed the fundamental law, and created 
a stale of entire dependence, and hereditary 
bondage, he enacted in his sovereign pleas¬ 
ure, that they should give Pharaoh one 
! part, and take the other four parts of the 
I productions of the earth to themselves, 
i How far the hand of God was in this over¬ 
throw of liberty, I will not decide; but 
from the fact that he has singled out the 
greatest slaveholders of that age, as the 
1 objects of his special favor, it would seem 





















7 


that the institution was one furnishing 
great opportunities to exercise grace and 
glorify God, as it still does, where its du¬ 
ties are faithfully discharged. 

I have been tedious on this first propo¬ 
sition, but I hope the importance of the 
subject to Christians as well as to states¬ 
men will be my apology. I have written 
it, not for victory over an adversary, or to 
support error or falsehood, but to gather 
up God’s will in reference to holding men 
and women in bondage , in the patriarchal 
age. And it is clear, in the first place, 
that God decreed this state before it ex¬ 
isted. Second. It is clear that the high¬ 
est manifestations of good-will which he 
ever gave to mortal man, was given to 
Abraham, in that covenant in which he 
required him to circumcise all his male 
servants, which he had bought with his 
money, and that were born of them in his 
house. Third. It is certain that he gave 
these servants as property to Isaac. Fourth. 
It is certain that, as the owner of these 
slaves, Isaac received similar tokens of 
God’s favor. Fifth. It is certain that Ja¬ 
cob, who inherited from Isaac his father, 
received like tokens of divine favor. Sixth. 
It is certain, from a fair construction of 
language, that Job, who is held up by God 
himself as a model of human perfection, 
was a great slaveholder. Seventh. It is 
certain, when God showed honor, and 
came down to bless Jacob’s posterity, in 
taking them by the hand to lead them out 
of Egypt, they were the owners of slaves 
that were bought with money, and treated as 
property; which slaves w'fere allowed of 
God to unite in celebrating the divine 
goodness to their masters, while hired ser¬ 
vants were excluded. Eighth. It is cer- 
tain that God interposed to give Jose ph 
the power in Egypt, which he used, to 
create a state, or condition, among the 
Egyptians, which substantially agrees with 
patriarchal and modern slavery. Ninth. 
It. is certain, that in reference to this in¬ 
stitution in Abraham’s family, and the sur¬ 
rounding nations, for five hundred years, 
it is never censured in any communication 
made from God to men. Tenth. It is 
certain, when God put a period to that 
dispensation, he recognized slaves as prop¬ 
erly on Mount Sinai. If, therefore, it has 
become sinful since, it cannot be from the 
nature of the thing, but from the sovereign 
pleasure of God in its prohibition. We 
will therefore proceed to our second prop¬ 
osition, which is— 


Second. That it was incorporated in the 
only national constitution emanating from 
| the Almighty. By common consent, that 
i portion of time stretching from Noah, 
until the law was given to Abraham’s pos¬ 
terity, at Mount Sinai, is called the patri¬ 
archal age ; this is the period we have re¬ 
viewed, in relation to this subject. From 
the giving of the law until the coming of 
Christ, is called the Mosaic or legal dispen¬ 
sation. From the coming of Christ to the 
end of time, is called the Gospel dispensa¬ 
tion. The legal dispensation is the period of 
time we propose now to examine, in reference 
to the institution of involuntary and heredi¬ 
tary slavery; in order to ascertain, whether, 
during this period, it existed at all, and if 
it did exist , whether with the divine sanc¬ 
tion, or in violation of the divine will. 
This dispensation is called the legal dis¬ 
pensation, because it was the pleasure of 
God to take Abraham’s posterity by mi¬ 
raculous power, then numbering near 
three millions of souls, and give them a 
written constitution of government, a 
country to dwell in, and a covenant of 
special protection and favor, for their obe¬ 
dience to his law until the coming of 
Christ. The laws which he gave them 
emanated from his sovereign pleasure, and 
were designed, in the first place, to make 
himself known in his essential perfections; 
second, in his moral character; third, in 
his relation to man; and fourth, to make 
known those principles of action by the 
exercise of which man attains his highest 
moral elevation, viz : supreme love to God, 
and love to others as to ourselves. 

All the law is nothing but a preceptive 
exemplification of these two principles; 
consequently, the existence of a precept 
in the law, utterly irreconcilable with 
these principles, would, destroy all claims 
upon us for an acknowledgment of its di 
vine original. Jesus Christ himself has 
put his finger upon these two principles 
of human conduct, (Deut. vi. 5—Levit. 
xix. 18,) revealed in the law of Moses, 
and decided, that on them hang all the 
aw and the prophets. 

The Apostle Paul decides in reference 
to the relative duties of men, that whether 
written out in preceptive form in the law 
or not, they are all comprehended in this 
saying, viz : “ thou shalt. love thy neighbor 
as thyself.” With these views to guide 
us, as to the acknowledged design ol the 
law, viz : that of revealing the eternal prin¬ 
ciples of moral rectitude, by which human 










8 


conduct is to be measured, so that sin may 
abound, or be made apparent, and right¬ 
eousness be ascertained or known, we 
may safely conclude, that the institution 
of slavery, which legalizes the holding one 
person in bondage as property forever by 
another, if it be morally wrong, or at war 
with the principle which requires us to 
love God supremely, and our neighbor as 
ourself, will, if noticed at all in the law, 
be noticed, for the purpose of being con¬ 
demned as sinful. And if the modern 
views of abolitionists be correct, we may 
expect to find the institution marked with 
such tokens of divine displeasure, as will 
throw all other sins into the shade, as 
comparatively small, when laid by the side 
of this monster. What, then, is true ? has 
God ingrafted hereditary slavery upon the 
constitution of government he conde¬ 
scended to give his chosen people—that 
people, among whom he promised to dwell, 
and that he requited to be holy? I answer, 
he has. It is clear and explicit. He en¬ 
acts, first, that his chosen people may take 
their money, go into the slave markets of 
the surrounding nations, (the seven de¬ 
voted nations excepted,) and purchase 
men-servants and women-servants, and 
give them, and their increase, to their 
children and their children’s children, 
forever ; and worse still for the refined hu¬ 
manity of our age—he guaranties to the 
foreign slaveholder perfect protection, 
while he comes in among the Israelites, 
for the purpose of dwelling, and raising 
and sellingslaves, who should be acclimated 
and accustomed to the habits and institu¬ 
tions of the country. And worse still for 
the sublimated humanity of the present age, 
God passes with the right to buy and pos¬ 
sess, the right to govern, by a severity 
which knows no bounds but the master’s 
discretion. And if worse can be, for the 
morbid humanity we censure, he enacts 
that his own people may sell themselves 
and their families for limited periods, with 
the privilege of extending the time at the 
end of the 6th year to the 50th year or 
jubilee, if they prefer bondage to freedom. 
Such is the precise character of two insti¬ 
tutions, found in the constitution of the 
Jewish commonwealth, emanating directly 
from Almighty God. For the 1,500 years, 
during which these laws were in force, 1 
God raised up a succession of prophets to 
reprove that people for the various sins 
into which they fell ; yet there is not j 
a reproof uttered against the institution cf I. 


involuntary slavery , for any species of abuse 
that ever grew out of it. A severe judg¬ 
ment is pronounced by Jeremiah, (chapter 
xxxiv. see from the 8th to the 22d verse,) 
for an abuse or violation of the law, con¬ 
cerning the voluntai'y servitude of Hebrews; 
but the prophet pens it with caution, as if to 
show that it had no reference to any abuse 
that had taken place under the system of 
involuntary slavery , which existed by law 
among that people; the sin consisted in 
making hereditary bond-men and bond¬ 
women of Hebrews, which was positively 
forbidden by the law, and not for buying 
and holdincr one of another nation in hered- 
itary bondage, which was as positively 
allowed by the law. And really, in view 
of what is passing in our country, and 
elsewhere, among men who profess to 
reverence the Bible, it would seem that 
these must be dreams of a distempered 
brain, and not the solemn truths of that 
sacred book. 

Well, I will now proceed to make them 
good to the letter, see Lev. xxv. 44, 45, 46 : 
“ Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which 
[ thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen 
that are round about you : of them shall 
ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. More¬ 
over, of the children of the strangers that 
do sojourn among you, of them shall ye 
buy, and of their families that are with you, 
which they begat in your land. And they 
shall be your possession. And ye shall 
take them as an inheritance for your chil¬ 
dren after you, to inherit them for a posses¬ 
sion, they shall be your bond-men forever.” 
I ask any candid man, if the words of this 
institution could be more explicit ? It is 
from God himself; it authorizes that people, 
to whom he had become king and Jaw-giver , 
to purchase men and women as property ; 
to hold them and their posterity in bondage; 
and to will them to their children as a pos- 
| session forever; and more, it allowsybr- 
: eign slaveholders to settle and live among 
them; to breed slaves and sell them. Now, 
j it is important to a correct understanding 
I of this subject, to connect with the right 
to buy and possess, as property, the amount 
of authority to govern , which is granted by 
the law-giver; this amount of authority is 
implied, in the first place, in the law which 
prohibits the exercise of rigid authority 
upon the Hebrews, who are allowed to sell 
themselves for limited times. “ If thy 
brother be waxen poor, and be sold unto 
thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as 
a bond servant, but as a hired servant , and 
















9 


as a sojourner he shall he with thee, and 
shall serve thee until the year of jubilee— 
they shall not be sold as bond-men; thou shalt 
not rule over them with rigor.” Levit. xxv. 
39, 40, 41, 42, 43. It will be evident to 
all, that here are two states of servitude ; 
in reference to one of which, rigid or com¬ 
pulsory authority, is prohibited, and that its 
exercise is authorized in the other. 

Second. In the criminal code, that con¬ 
duct is punished with death, when done 
to a freeman , which is not punishable at 
all, when done by a master to a slave; for 
the express reason, that the slave is the 
master's money. “ He that smiteth a man, 
so that he die, shall surely be put to death.” 
Exod. xxi. 11, 12. “If a man smite his 
servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die 
under his hand, he shall be surely pun¬ 
ished ; notwithstanding, if he continue a 
day or two, he shall not be punished, for 
he is his money.” Exod. xxi. 20. Here 
is precisely the same crime: smiting a 
man so that he die ; if it be a freeman, he 
shall surely be put to death, whether the 
man die under his hand or live a day or 
two after ; but if it be a servant, and the 
master continued the rod until the servant 
died under his hand, then it must be evi¬ 
dent that such a chastisement could not be 
necessary for any purpose of wholesome 
or reasonable authority, and therefore he 
may be punished, but not with death. But 
if the death did not take place for a day 
or two, then it is to b a presumed, that the 
master only aimed to use the rod, so far 
as was necessary to produce subordination, 
and for this, the law which allowed him to 
lay out his money in the slave, would pro¬ 
tect him against all punishment. This is 
the common-sense principle which has 
been adopted substantially in civilized 
countries, where involuntary slavery has 
been instituted, from that day until this. 
Now, here are laws that authorize the 
holding of men and women in bondage, 
and chastising them with the rod, with a 
severity that terminates in death. And 
he who believes the Bible to be of divine 
authority, believes these laws were given 
by the Holy Ghost to Moses. I under¬ 
stand modern abolition sentiments to be 
sentiments of marked hatred against such 
laws ; to be sentiments which would hold 
God himself in abhorrence, if he were to 
give such laws his sanction : but he has 
given them his sanction ; therefore, they 
must be in harmony with his moral char¬ 
acter. Again, the divine Lawgiver, in guard¬ 


ing the property right in slaves among his 
chosen people, sanctions principles which 
may work the separation of man and wife, 
father and children. Surely, my reader 
will conclude, if I make this good, I shall 
force a part of the saints of the present 
day to blaspheme the God of Israel. All I 
can say is, truth is mighty, and I hope it 
will bring us all to say, Let God be true, in 
settling the true principles of humanity, 
and every man a liar who says slavery was 
inconsistent with it, in the days of the Mo¬ 
saic law. Now for the proof: “If thou buy 
a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve 
thee, and in the seventh he shall go out 
free for nothing ; if he came in by himself, 
he shall go out by himself; if he were 
married, then his wife shall go out with 
him ; if his master have given him a wife 
(one of his bond-maids) and she have 
borne him sons and daughters, the wife 
and her children shall be her master’s, and 
he shall go out by himself.” Exodus, xxi. 
2, 3, 4. Now, the God of Israel gives this 
man the option of being separated by the 
master, from his wife and children, or be¬ 
coming' himself a servant forever, with a 
mark of the fact, like our cattle, in the ear, 
that can be seen wherever he goes; for it 
is enacted, “ If the servant shall plainly 
sav, I love my master, my wife, and my 
children, I will not go out free, then his 
master shall bring him unto the judges, 
(in open court,) he shall also bring him 
unto the door, or unto the door post, (so 
that all in the court-house, and those in 
the yard maybe witnesses,) and his master 
shall bore his ear through with an awl ; 
and he shall serve him forever.” It is use¬ 
less to spend more time in gathering up 
what is written in the Scriptures on this 
subject, from the giving of the law until 
the coming of Christ. 

Here is the authority, from God him¬ 
self, to hold men and women, and their 
increase, in slavery, and to transmit them 
as property forever; here is plenary power 
to govern them, whatever measure of sever¬ 
ity it may require; provided only, that to 
govern , be the object in exercising it. 
Here is power given to the master, to 
separate man and wife, parent and child, 
by denying ingress to his premises, sooner 
than compel him to freeorsell the mother, 
that the marriage relation might be hon¬ 
ored. The preference is given of God to 
enslaving the father rather than freeing the 
mother and children. 

Under every view we are allowed to take 














10 


of the subject, the conviction is forced 
upon the mind, that from Abraham’s day, 
until the coming of Christ, (a period of 
two thousand years,) this institution found 
favor with God. No marks of his dis¬ 
pleasure are found resting upon it. It 
must, therefore, in its moral nature, be in 
harmony with those moral principles which 
he requires to be exercised by the law of 
Moses, and which are the principles that 
secure harmony and happiness to the uni¬ 
verse, viz : supreme love to God and the 
love of our neighbor as ourself. Deut. 
vi. 6.—Levit. xix. 18. To suppose that 
God h as laid down these fundamental 
principles of moral rectitude in his law, 
as the soul that must inhabit every pre¬ 
ceptive requirement of that law, and yet 
to suppose he created relations among the 
Israelites, and prescribed relative duties 
growing out of these relations, that are 
hostile to the spirit of the law, is to sup¬ 
pose what will never bring great honor or 
glory to our Maker. But if I understand 
that spirit which is now warring against 
slavery, this is the position which the 
spirit of God forces it to occupy, viz : that 
God has ordained slavery, and yet slavery 
is the greatest of sins. Such was the 
state ol the case when Jesus Christ made 
his appearance. We propose— 

Third. To show that Jesus Christ re¬ 
cognized this institution as one that was 
lawful among men, and regulated its rela¬ 
tive duties. 

Having shown from the Scriptures, that 
slavery existed with Abraham and the 
patriarchs, with divine approbation, arid 
having shown from the same source, that 
the Almighty incorporated it in the law, 
as an institution among Abraham’s seed, 
until the coming of Christ, our precise 
object now is, to ascertain whether Jesus 
Christ has abolished it, or recognized it as 
a lawful relation , existing among men, and 
prescribed duties which belong to it, as 
he has other relative duties ; such as those 
between husband and wife, parent and 
child, magistrate and subject. 

And first, I may take it for granted, 
without proof, that he has not abolished 
it by commandment, for none pretend to 
this. This, by the way, is a singular cir¬ 
cumstance, that Jesus Christ should put a 
system of measures into operation, which 
have for their object the subjugation of all 
men to him as a law-giver—kings, legis¬ 
lators, and private citizens in all nations; 
at a time, too, when hereditary slavery ! 


existed in all; and after it had been incor¬ 
porated for fifteen hundred years into the 
Jewish constitution, immediately given by 
God himself. I say, it is passing strange, 
that under such circumstances, Jesus 
should fail to prohibit its further existence, 
if it was his intention to abolish it. Such 
an omission or oversight cannot be charged 
upon any other legislator the world has 
ever seen. But, says the Abolitionist, he 
has introduced new moral principles, 
which will extinguish it as an unavoidable 
consequence, without a direct prohibitory 
command. What are they ? “Do to others 
as you would they should do to you,” 
Taking these words of Christ to be a body, 
inclosing a moral soul in them, what soul, 
I ask, is it? 

The same embodied in these words of 
Moses, Levit. xix. 18: “thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself;” or is it another? 
It cannot be another, but it must be the 
very same, because Jesus says, there are but 
two principles in being, in God’s moral 
government, one including all that is due 
to God , the other all that is due to men. 

If, therefore, doing to others as we 
would they should do to us, means pre¬ 
cisely what loving our neighbor as our¬ 
self means, then Jesus has added no new 
moral principle above those in the law of 
Moses, to prohibit slavery, for in his law 
is found this principle, and slavery also. 

The very God that said to them, they 
should love him supremely, and their neigh¬ 
bors as themselves, said to them also, “ of 
the heathen that are round about you, 
thou shalt buy bond-men and bond-women, 
and they shall be your possession, and ye 
shall take them as an inheritance for your 
children after you, to inherit them as a 
possession; they shall be your bond-men 
forever.” Now, to suppose that Jesus 
Christ left his disciples to find out, without 
a revelation, that slavery must be abolished, 
as a natural consequence from the fact, 
that when God established the relation of 
master and servant under the law, he said 
to the master and servant, each of you 
must love the other as yourself, is, to say 
the least, making Jesus to presume largely 
upon the intensity of their intellect, that 
they would be able to spy out a discrepan¬ 
cy in the law of Moses, which God him¬ 
self never saw. Again : if “ do to others 
as ye would they should do to you,” is to 
abolish slavery, it will for the same reason, 
level all inequalities in human condition. 
It is not to be admitted, then, that Jesus 














11 


Christ introduced any new moral principle 
that must, of necessity, abolish slavery. The 
principle relied on to prove it, stands boldly 
out to view in the code of Moses, as the 
soul, that must regulate, and control, the 
relation of master and servant, and therefore 
cannot abolish it. 

Why a master cannot do to a servant, 
or a servant to a master, as he would have 
them do to him, as soon a wife to a hus¬ 
band or a husband to a wife, I am utterly 
at a loss to know. The wife is “subject 
to her husband in all things” by divine 
precept. He is her “ head,” and God 
“ suffers her not to usurp authority over 
him.” Now, why in such a relation as 
this, we can do to others a# we would they 
should do to us, any sooner than in a rela¬ 
tion, securing to us what is just and equal 
as servants, and due respect and faithful 
service rendered with (rood will to us as 
masters, I am at a loss to conceive. I af¬ 
firm then, first, (and no man denies,) that 
Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by 
a prohibitory command: and second, I 
affirm, he has introduced no new moral 
principle which can work its destruction, 
under the gospel dispensation; and that the 
principle relied on forthis purpose, is a fun¬ 
damental principle of the Mosaic law, un¬ 
der which slavery was instituted by Jeho¬ 
vah himself: and third, with this absence 
of positive prohibition, and this absence 
of principle, to work its ruin, I affirm, that 
in all the Roman provinces, where churches 
were planted by the Apostles, hereditary 
slavery existed, as it did among the Jews, 
and as it does now among us, (which ad¬ 
mits of proof from history that no man will 
dispute who knows anything of the mat¬ 
ter,) and that in instructing such churches, 
the Holy Ghost by the Apostles, has re¬ 
cognized the institution, as one legally 
existing among them, to be perpetuated in 
the church, and that its duties are pre¬ 
scribed. 

Now for the proof: To the church 
planted at Ephesus, the capital of the les¬ 
ser Asia, Paul ordains by letter, subordina¬ 
tion in the fear of God,—first between wife 
and husband; second, child and parent; 
third, servant and master; all, as states, or 
conditions, existing among the members. 

The relative duties of each state, are 
pointed out; those between the servant 
and master in these words: Servants be 
obedient to them who are your masters, 
according to the flesh, with fear and trem¬ 
bling, in singleness of your heart as unto 


Christ; not with eye service as men pleas- 
ers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the 
will of God from the heart, with good will, 
doing service, as to the Lord and not to 
men, knowing that whatsoever good thing 
any man doeth, the same shall he receive 
of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. 
And ye masters do the same things to them, 
forbearing threatening, knowing that your 
master is also in heaven, neither is there 
respect of persons with him.” Here, by 
the Roman law, the servant was property, 
and the control of the master unlimited, as 
we shall presently prove. 

To the church at Colosse, a city of 
Phrygia, in the lesser Asia,—Paul in his 
letter to them, recognizes the three rela- 
tions of wives and husbands, parents and 
children, servants and masters, as relations 
existing among the members ; (here the 
Roman law was the same;) and to the serv¬ 
ants and masters he thus writes: “Serv¬ 
ants obey in all things your masters, ac¬ 
cording to the flesh : not with eye service, 
as men pleasers, but in singleness of heart, 
fearing God : and whatsoever you do, do 
it heartily, as to the Lord and not unto 
men ; knowing that of the Lord ye shall 
receive the reward of the inheritance, for 
ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that 
doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong 
he has done ; and there is no respect ot 
persons with God. Masters give unto 
your servants that which is just and equal, 
knowing that you also have a master in 
heaven.” 

The same Apostle writes a letter to the 
church at Corinth ;—a very important city, 
formerly called the eye of Greece, either 
from its location, or intelligence, or both, 
and consequently, an important point, for 
radiating light in all directions, in reference 
to subjects connected with the cause ol 
Jesus Christ; and particularly, in the bear¬ 
ing of its practical precepts on civil society, 
and the political structure of nations. 
Under the direction of the Holy Ghost, he 
instructs the church, that, on this particular 
subject, one general principle was ordained 
of God, applicable alike in all countries 
and at all stages of the church’s future his¬ 
tory, and that it was this: “ as the Lord has 
called every one, so let him walk.” “Let 
every man abide in the same calling where¬ 
in he is called.” Let every man wherein 
he is called, therein abide with God.” 1 
Cor. vii. 17, 20, 24; “ And so ordain I in 

all churches ;” vii. 17. The Apostle thus 
explains his meaning: 












12 


“Is any man called being circumcised ? 
Let him not become uncircumcised. 

“Is any called in uncircumcision? Let 
him not be circumcised. 

“ Art thou called, being a servant ? Care 
not for it, but if thou mayst be made free, 
use it rather;” vii. 18, 21. Here, by the 
Roman law, slaves were property,—yet 
Paul ordains, in this and all other churches, 
that Christianity gave them no title to free¬ 
dom, but on the contrary, required them 
not to care for being slaves, or in other 
words, to be contented with their state , or 
relation , unless they could be made free, in 
a lawful way. 

Again, we have a letter by Peter, who is 
the Apostle ofthe circumcision—addressed 
especially to the Jews, who were scattered 
through various provinces of the Roman 
empire; comprising those provinces es¬ 
pecially, which were the theatre of their 
dispersion, under the Assyrians and Baby¬ 
lonians. Here, for the space of 750 years, 
they had resided, during which time those 
revolutions were in progress which termi¬ 
nated the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and 
Macedonian empires, and transferred im¬ 
perial power to Rome. These revolution¬ 
ary scenes of violence left one half the 
human race (within the range of their in¬ 
fluence,) in abject bondage to the one half. 
This was the state of things in these prov¬ 
inces addressed by Peter, when he wrote. 
The chances of war, we may reasonably 
conclude, had assigned a full share of 
bondage to this people, who were despised 
of all nations. In view of their enslaved 
condition to the Gentiles; knowing, as 
Peter did, their seditious character; fore¬ 
seeing, from the prediction ofthe Saviour, 
the destined bondage of those who were 
then free in Israel, which was soon to take 
place, as it did, in the fall of Jerusalem, 
when all the males over seventeen, were 
sent to work in the mines of Egypt, as 
slaves to the State, and all the males under, 
amounting to upwards of ninety-seven 
thousand, were sold into domestic bond¬ 
age;—I say, in view of these things, Peter 
was moved by the Holy Ghost to write to 
them, and his solicitude for such of them 
as were in slavery, is very conspicuous in 
his letter; (read carefully from 1st Peter, 
2d chapter, from the 13th verse to the end;) 
but it is not the solicitude of an abolitionist. 
He thus addresses them: “Dearly be¬ 
loved, I beseech you.” He thus instructs 
them : “ Submit yourselves to every ordi¬ 
nance of man for the Lord’s sake.” “ For 


so is the will of God.” “Servants, be 
subject to your masters with all fear, not 
| only to the good and gentle, but also to 
the froward.” 1st Peter ii. 11, 13, 15, 18. 
What an important document is this!— 
enjoining political subjection to govern¬ 
ments of every form, and Christian subjection 
on the part of .servants to their masters, 
whether good or bad ; for the purpose of 
showing forth to advantage, the glory of 
the Gospel, and putting to silence the igno¬ 
rance of foolish men, who might think it 
seditious. 

By “every ordinance of man,” as the 
context will show, is meant governmental 
regulations or laws, as was that of the 
Romans for enslaving their prisoners taken 
in war, instead of destroying their lives. 

When such enslaved persons came into 
the church of Christ let them (says Peter) 
“ be subject to their masters with all fear,” 
whether such masters be good or bad. It 
is worthy of remark, that he says much to 
secure civil subordination to the State, 
and hearty and cheerful obedience to the 
masters, on the part of servants; yet he 
says nothing to masters in the whole letter. 
It would seem from this, that danger to 
the cause of Christ was on the side of in¬ 
subordination among the seivants, and a 
want of humility with inferiors, rather than 
haughtiness among superiors in the church. 

Gibbon, in his Rome, vol. 1, pages 25, 
26, 27, shows, from standard authorities, 
that Rome at this time swayed its sceptre 
over one hundred and twenty millions of 
souls; that in every province, and in every 
family, absolute slavery existed; that it was 
at least fifty years later than the date of 
Peter’s letters, before the absolute power 
of life and death over the slave was taken 
from the master, and committed to the ma¬ 
gistrate; that about sixty millions of souls 
were held as property in this abject con¬ 
dition ; that the price of a slave was four 
times th.at of an ox ; that their punishments 
were very sanguinary; that in the second 
century, when their condition began to 
improve a little, emancipation was pro¬ 
hibited, except for great personal merit, 
or some public service rendered to the 
State ; and that it was not until the third 
or fourth generation after freedom was 
obtained, that the descendants of a slave 
could share in the honors of the State. 
This is the state, condition, or relation 
among the members of all the apostolic 
churches, whether among Gentiles or Jews; 
which the Holy Ghost, by Paul for the 



















Gentiles, and Peter for the Jews, recog¬ 
nizes as lawful; the mutual duties of 
which he prescribes in the language above. 
Now, I ask, can any man in his proper 
senses, from these premises, bring himself 
to conclude that slavery is abolished by 
Jesus Christ , or that obligations are im¬ 
posed by him upon his disciples that are 
subversive of the institution? Knowing 
as we do from cotemporary historians, 
that the institution of slavery existed at 
the time and to the extent stated by Gib¬ 
bon—what sort of a soul must a man have, 
who, with these facts before him, will con¬ 
ceal the truth on this subject, and hold 
Jesus Christ responsible for a scheme of 
treason that would, if carried out, have 
brought the life of every human being on 
earth at the time, into the most imminent 
peril, and that must have worked the de¬ 
struction of half the human race? 

At Rome, the authoritative centre of 
that vast theatre upon which the glories of 
the cross were to be won, a church was 
planted. Paul wrote a long letter to them. 
On this subject it is full of instruction. 

Abolition sentiments had not dared to 
show themselves so near the imperial 
sword. To warn the church against their 
treasonable tendency, was therefore un¬ 
necessary. Instead, therefore, of special 
precepts upon the subject of relative duties 
between master and servant, he lays down 
a system of practical morality, in the 12th 
chapter of his letter, which must commend 
itself equally to the king on his throne, 
and the slave in his hovel ; for while its 
practical operation leaves the subject of 
earthly government to the discretion of 
man, it secures the exercise of sentiments 
and feelings that must exterminate every¬ 
thing inconsistent with doing to others as 
we would they should do unto us: a 
system of principles that will give moral 
strength to governments ; peace, security, 
and good will to individuals; and glory to 
God in the highest. And in the 13th 
chapter, fro.m the 1st to the end of the 7th 
verse, he recognizes human government 
as an ordinance of God, which the follow¬ 
ers of Christ are to obey, honor, and sup¬ 
port; not only from dread of punishment, 
but for conscience sake; which 1 believe abo¬ 
litionism refuses most positively to do, to 
such governments as from the force of cir¬ 
cumstances even permit slavery. 

Ao-ain. But we are furnished with ad- 

o 

ditional light, and if we are not greatly i 
mistaken, with light which arose out of I 


circumstances analogous to those which 
are threatening at the present moment to 
overthrow the peace ofsociety, and deluge 
this nation with blood. To Titus whom 
Paul left in Crete, to set in order the things 
that were wanting, he writes a letter, in 
which he warns him of false teachers, that 
were to be dreaded on account of their 
doctrine. While they professed “ to know 
God,” that is, to know his will under the 
gospel dispensation, “ in works they denied 
him;” that is, they did, and required others 
to do, what was contrary to his will under 
the gospel dispensation. “ They were 
abominable,” that is, to the church and 
state, “ and disobedient,” that is, to the 
authority of the Apostles, and the civil au¬ 
thority ol the land. Titus, he then exhorts, 
“to speak the things that become sound 
doctrine;” that is, that the members of the 
church observe the law ofthe land, and obey 
the civil magistrate ; that “servants be obe¬ 
dient to theirown masters, and please them 
well in all things,” not “ answering again, 
not purloining, but showing all good fidelity 
that they may adorn the doctrine of God 
our Saviour in all things,” in that which 
subjects the ecclesiastical to the civil au¬ 
thority in particular. “These things speak, 
and exhort and rebuke with all authority ; 
let no man despise thee. Put them in 
mind to be subject to principalities and 
powers, to obey magistrates.” Titus i. 16, 
and ii. from 1 to 10, and iii. 1. The con¬ 
text shows that a doctrine was taught by 
these wicked men, which tended in its in¬ 
fluence on servants, to bring the Gospel of 
Christ into contempt, in church and state, 
because of its seditious and insubordinate 
character. 

But at Ephesus, the capital of the lesser 
Asia, where Paul had labored with great 
success for three years—a point of great 
importance to the Gospel cause—the Apos¬ 
tle left Timothy for the purpose of watching 
against the false teachers, and particularly 
against the abolitionists. In addition to 
a letter which he had addressed to this 
church previously, in which the mutual 
duty of master and servant is taught, and 
which has already been referred to, he 
further instructs Timothy by letter on the 
same subject: “Let as many servants as 
are under the yoke count their masters 
worthy of all honor, that the name of God 
and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” 1 
Tim. vi. 1. These were unbelieving mas- 
ters, as the next verse will show. In this 
church at Ephesus, the circumstances 


















14 


existed, which are brought to light by 
Paul’s letter to Timothy, that must silence 
every cavil, which men, who do not know 
God’s will on this subject, may start until 
time ends. In an age filled with literary 
men, who are employed in transmitting 
historically, to future generations, the 
structure of society in the Roman Empire; 
that would put it in our power at this distant 
day, to know the state or conditon of a 
slave in the Roman Empire, as well as if 
we had lived at the time, and to know be¬ 
yond question, that his condition was pre¬ 
cisely that one, which is now denounced 
as sinful: in such an age, and in such 
circumstances, Jesus Christ causes his will 
to be published to the world ; and it is 
this, that if a Christian slave have an un¬ 
believing master, who acknowledges no 
allegiance to Christ, this believing slave 
must count his master worthy of all honor, 
according to what the Apostle teaches the 
Romans, “ Render, therefore, to all their 
dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, cus¬ 
tom to whom custom is due, fear to whom 
fear, honor to whom honor.” Rom. xiii. 
7. Now, honor is enjoined of God in the 
Scriptures, from children to parents— 
from husbands to wives—from subjects to 
magistrates and rulers, and here by Jesus 
Christ, from Christian slaves to unbelieving 
masters, who held them as property by law, 
with power over their very lives. And the 
command is remarkable. While we are 
commanded to honor father and mother, 
without adding to the precept “ all honor,” 
here a Christian servant is bound to render 
to his unbelieving master “all honor.” 
Why is this ? Because in the one case 
nature moves in the direction of the com¬ 
mand ; but in the other, against it. Nature 
being subjected to the law of grace, might 
be disposed to obey reluctantly ; hence the 
amplitude of the command. But what 
purpose was to be answered by this devo¬ 
tion of the slave ? The Apostle answers, 
“ that the name of God and his doctrine 
(ofsubordination to the law-making power) 
be not blasphemed,” as they certainly 
would by a contrary course on the part of 
the servant, for the most obvious reason in 
the world ; while the sword would have 
been drawn against the Gospel, and a war 
of extermination waged against its propa¬ 
gators, in every province of the Roman 
Empire, for there was slavery in all; and 
so it would be now. 

But, says the caviler, these directions 
are given to Christian slaves whose masters 


did not acknowledge the authority of Christ 
to govern them ; and are therefore defect¬ 
ive as proof, that he approves of one Chris¬ 
tian man holding another in bondage. 
Very well, we will see. In the next verse, 
(1 Timothy vi. 2,) he says, “ and they that 
have believing masters, let them not de¬ 
spise them, because they are brethren, but 
rather do them service, because they are 
faithful and beloved, partakers of the bene¬ 
fit.” Here is a great change ; instead of 
a command to a believing slave to render 
to a believing master all honor, and thereby 
making that belieVino- master in honor 
equal to an unbelieving master, here is 
rather an exhortation to the slave not to 
despise him, because he is a believer. Now, 
I ask, why the circumstance of a master 
becoming a believer in Christ, should be- 
come the cause of his believing slave de- 
spising him, while that slave was supposed 
to acquiesce in the duty of rendering all 
honor to that master before he became a 
believer ? I answer, precisely, and only, 
because there were abolition teachers among 
them, who taught otherwise, and consented 
not to wholesome words, eventhe words of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy vii. 3: 
and “to the doctrine which is according to 
godliness,” taught in the 8th verse, viz : 
having food and raiment, servants should 
therewith be content; for the pronoun us, 
in the 8th verse of this connection, means 
especially the se?'vants he was instructing, 
as well as Christians in general. These 
men taught, that godliness abolished sla¬ 
very, that it gave the title of freedom to 
the slave, and that so soon as a man pro¬ 
fessed to be subject to Christ, and refused 
to liberate his slaves, he was a hypocrite, 
and deserved not the countenance of any 
who bore the Christian name. Such men, 
he Apostle says, are “ proud, (just as they 
are now,) knowing nothing,” (that is, on 
this subject,) but “ doating about questions, 
and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, 
stiife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse dis- 
putings of men of corrupt minds, and des¬ 
titute of the truth, supposing that gain is 
godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” 
1 Tim. vi. 4, 5. 

Such were the bitter fruits which aboli¬ 
tion sentiments produced in the Apostolic 
day, and such precisely are the fruits they 
produce now. 

Now, I say, here is the case made out, 
which certainly would call forth the com¬ 
mand from Christ, to abolish slavery, if he 
ever intended to abolish it. Both the 













% 

15 


servant and the master were one in Christ 
Jesus. Both were members of the same 
church, both were under unlimited and 
voluntary obedience to the same divine 
lawgiver. 

No political objection existed at the 
time against their obedience to him on 
the subject of slavery; and what is the will, 
not of Paul, but of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
immediately in person, upon the case 
tlius made out? Does he say to the mas¬ 
ter, having put yourself under my govern¬ 
ment. you must no longer hold your brother 
in bondage ? Does he say to the slave, if 
your master does not release you, you 
must go and talk to him privately, about 
this trespass upon your rights under jj 
the law of my kingdom ; and if he does 
not hear you, you must take two ot 
three with you; and if he does not 
hear them then you must tell it to the 
church, and have him expelled from my 
flock, as a wolf in sheep’s clothing ? I 
say, what does the Lord Jesus say to this 
poor believing slave, concerning a master 
who held unlimited power over his person 
and life, under the Roman law? He tells 
him that the very circumstance of his mas¬ 
ter’s being a brother, constitutes the reason 
why he should be more ready to do him 
service ; for, in addition' to the circum¬ 
stance of his being a brother who would 
be benefited by his service, he would as 
a brother give him what was just and 
equal in return, and “ forbear threatening,” 
much less abusing his authority over him, 
for that he (the master) also had a master 
in heaven, who was no respecter of per¬ 
sons. It is taken for granted, on all hands 
pretty generally, that Jesus Christ has at 
least been silent, or that he has not per¬ 
sonally spoken on the subject of slavery. 
Once for all, I deny it. Paul, after stating 
that a slave was to honor an unbelieving 
master, in the Isf verse of the 6th chapter, 
says, in the 2d verse, that to a believing 
master, he is the rather to do service, be¬ 
cause he who partakes of the benefit is his 
brother. He then says, if any man teach 
otherwise, (as all Abolitionists then did, 
and now do,) and consent not to whole- ‘ 
some words, “even the words of our Lord 
Jesus Christ.” Now, if our Lord Jesus j 
Christ uttered such words, how dare we 
say he has been silent? If he has been 
silent, how dare the Apostle say these are | 
the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, if i 
the Lord Jesus Christ never spoke them? 
Where or when, or on what occasion he 


spoke them, we are not informed; but 
certain it is, that Paul has borne false wit¬ 
ness, or that Jesus Christ has uttered the 
words that impose an obligation on serv¬ 
ants, who are abject slaves, to render 
service with good will from the heart, to 
believing masters, and to account their 
unbelieving masters as worthy of all honor, 
that the name of God and his doctrine be 
not blasphemed. Jesus Christ revealed to 
Paul the doctrine which Paul has settled 
throughout the Gentile world, (and by 
consequence, the Jewish world also,) on 
the subject of slavery, so far as it affects 
his kingdom. As we have seen, it is clear 
and full. 

From the great importance of the sub¬ 
ject, involving the personal liberty of half 
the human race at that time, and a large 
portion of them at all times since, it is not 
to be wondered at, that Paul would carry 
the question to the Savior, and plead for 
a decisive expression of his will, that 
would forever do away the necessity of 
inferring anything by reasoning from the 
premises laid down in the former dispen¬ 
sation; or in the Patriarchal age ; and at 
Ephesus, if not at Crete, the issue is fairly 
made, between Paul on the one side, and 
certain abolition teachers on the other, 
when, in addition to the official intelli¬ 
gence ordinarily given to the Apostles by 
the Holy Ghost, to guide them into all 
truth, he affirms, that the doctrine of per¬ 
fect civil subordination, on the part of 
hereditary slaves to their masters, whether 
believers or unbelievers, was one which 
he, Paul, taught in the words of the Lord 
Jesus Christ himself. 

The Scriptures we have adduced from 
the New Testament, to prove the recogni¬ 
tion of hereditary slavery by the Savior, 
as a lawful relation in the sight of God, 
lose much of their force from the use of a 
word by the translators, which by time, 
has lost much ol its original meaning; 
that is, the word servant. Dr. Johnson, 
in his Dictionary, says: “ Servant is one 
of the few words, which by time has ac¬ 
quired a softer signification than its origin¬ 
al, knave, degenerated into cheat. While 
servant , which signified originally, a person 
preserved from death by the conqueror, 
and reserved for slavery, signifies only an 
obedient attendant.” Now, all history 
will prove that the servants of the New 
Testament addressed by the Apostles, 
in their letters to the several churches 
throughout the Roman Empire, were 





















16 


such as were preserved from death by the 
conqueror, and taken into slavery. This 
was their condition, and it a fact well 
known to all men acquainted with history. 
Had the word which designates their con¬ 
dition, in our translation, lost none of its 
original meaning, a common man could 
not have fallen into a mistake as to the 
condition indicated. But to waive this 
fact, we are furnished with all the evidence 
that can be desired. The Savior appeared 
in an age of learning—the enslaved con- 
dition of half the Roman Empire, at the 
time, is a fact embodied with all the his¬ 
torical records—the constitution God gave 
the Jews, was in harmony with the Roman 
regulation on the subject of slavery. In 
this state of things, Jesus ordered his 
Gospel to be preached in all the world, 
and to every creature. It was done as he 
directed ; and masters and servants, and 
persons in all conditions, were brought by 
the Gospel to obey the Savior. Churches 
were constituted. We have examined the 
letters written to the churches, composed 
of these materials. The result is, that 
each member is furnished with a law to 
regulate the duties of his civil station— 
from the highest to the lowest. 

o t 

We will remark, in closing under this 
head, that we have shown from the text 
of the sacred volume, that when God en¬ 
tered into covenant with Abraham, it was 
with him as a slaveholder; that when he 
took his posterity by the hand in Egypt, 
five hundred years afterwards to confirm 
the promise made to Abraham, it was 
done with them as slaveholders ; that when 
he gave them a constitution of govern 
ment, he gave them the right to perpetuate 
hereditary slavery; and that he did not 
for the fifteen hundred years of their na¬ 
tional existence, express disapprobation 
towards the institution 

We have also shown from authentic 
history that the institution of slavery ex¬ 
isted in every family, and in every province 
of the Roman Empire, at the time the 
gospel was published to them. 

We have also shown from the New Test¬ 
ament, that all the churches are recognized 
as composed of masters and servants ; and 
that they are instructed by Christ how to 
discharge their relative duties; and finally, 
that in reference to the question which 
was then started, whether Christianity did 
not abolish the institution, or the right of 
one Christian to hold another Christian in 
bondage, we have shown, that “ the words 


[ of our Lord Jesus Christ” are, that so far 
1 from this being the case, it adds to the 
i obligation of the servant to render service 
with good will to his master, and that 

O < ' B 

gospel fellowship is not to be entertained 
with persons who will not consent to it! 

I propose, in the fourth place, to show 
that the institution of slavery is full of 
mercy. I shall say but a few words on 
this subject. Authentic history warrants 
this conclusion, that for a long period of 
time, it was this institution alone which fur¬ 
nished a motive for sparing the prisoner’s 
life. The chances of war, when the earth 
was filled with small tribes of men, who 
had a passion for it, brought to decision, 
almost daily, conflicts, where nothing but 
this institution interposed an inducement 
to save the vanquished. The same was 
true in the enlarged schemes of conquest, 
which brought the four great universal 
empires of the Scriptures to the zenith of 
their power. 

The same is true in the history of Africa, 
as far back as we can trace it. It is only 
sober truth to say, that the institution of 
slavery has saved from the sword more 
lives, including their increase, than all the 
souls who now inhabit this globe. 

The souls thus conquered and subjected 
to masters, who feared not God nor re¬ 
garded men, in the days of Abraham, Job, 
and the Patriarchs, were surely brought 
under great obligations to the mercy of 
God, in allowing such men as these to 
purchase them, and keep them in their 
families. 

The institution when ingrafted on the 
Jewish constitution, was designed princi¬ 
pally, not to enlarge the number, but to 
ameliorate the condition of the slaves in 
the neighboring nations. 

Under the Gospel, it has brought within 
the range of Gospel influence, millions’of 
Ham’s descendants among ourselves, who, 
but for this institution, would have sunk 
down to eternal ruin; knowing not God, and 
strangers to the Gospel. In their bondage 
here on earth, they have been much better 
provided for, and great multitudes of them 
•have been made the freemen of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and left this world rejoicing 
in hope of the glory of God. The elements 
of an empire, which I hope will lead Ethi¬ 
opia very soon to stretch out her hands to 
God, is the fruit of the institution here. 
An officious meddling with the institution, 
from feelings and sentiments unknown to 
the Bible, may lead to the extermination 


















17 


of the slave race among us, who, taken as 
a whole, are utterly unprepared for a higher 
civil state; but benefit them, it cannot. 
Their condition, as a class, is now better 
than that of any other equal number of 
laborers on earth, and is daily improving. 

If the Bible is allowed to awaken the 
spirit, and control the philanthropy which 
works their good, the day is not far distant 
when the highest wishes of saints will be 
gratified, in having conferred on them all 
that the spirit of good-will can bestow. 
This spirit which was kindling into life, 
has received a great check among us of 
late, by that trait which the Apostle Peter 
reproves and shames in his officious coun¬ 
trymen, when he says: “ But let none of 
you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or 
as an evil doer, or as a busy-body in other 
men’s matters.” Our citizens have been 
murdered—our property has been stolen, 
(if the receiver is as bad as the thief,)— 
our lives have been put in jeopardy—our 
characters traduced—and attempts made 
to force political slavery upon us in the 
place of domestic, by strangers who have 
no right to meddle with our matters. In- 
stead of meditating generous things to our 
slaves, as a return for Gospel subordination, 
we have to put on our armor to suppress 
a rebellious spirit, engendered by “false 
doctrine,” propagated by men “ of corrupt 
minds, and destitute of the truth,” who 
teach them that the gain of freedom to the 
slave, is the only proof of godliness in the 
master. From such, Paul says we must 
withdraw ourselves; and if we fail to do 
it, and to rebuke them with all the author¬ 
ity which “ the words of our Lord Jesus 
Christ” confer, we shall be wanting in duty 
to him, to ourselves, and to the world. 

THORNTON STRINGFELLOW. 


A.Y EXAMINATION 

Of Elder Graluslia’s Reply to Dr. Richard 
Euller, of South Carolina. 

Culpeper, Virginia, 1841. 

Brother Sands: After my essay on 
slavery was published by you in the Herald, 
I sent a copy of it to a prominent Abolition 
gentleman in New York, accompanied by 
a friendly letter. 

This gentleman I selected as a corre- 
spondent, because of Ins high standing, 
intellectual attainments, and unquestioned 
piety. I frankly avowed to him my read¬ 
iness to abandon slavery, so soon as I was 
convinced by the Bible that it was sin- 
2 


ful, and requested him, “ if the Bible 
contained precepts, and settled princi¬ 
ples of conduct, in direct opposition to 
those portions of it upon which I relied, 
as furnishing the mind of the Almighty 
upon the subject of slavery, that he would 
furnish me with the knowledge of the fact.” 
To this letter I received a friendly reply, 
accompanied by a printed communication, 
containing the result of a prayerful effort 
which he had previously made, for the 
purpose of furnishing the very information 
to a friend at the South, which I sought 
to obtain at his hands. 

It may be owing to my prejudices, or a 
want of intellect, that I fail to be convinced, 
by those portions of the Bible to which he 
refers, to prove that slavery is sinful. But 
as the support of truth is my object , and as I 
wish to have the answer of a good con¬ 
science towards God in this matter, I here¬ 
with publish, for the information of all into 
whose hands my first essay may have fallen, 
every passage in the Bible to which this 
distinguished brother refers me for “pre¬ 
cepts and settled principles of conduct, in 
direct opposition to those portions of it 
upon which I relied, as furnishing the 
mind of the Almighty upon the subject of 
slavery.”> 

1st. His reference to the sacred volume 
is this: “God hath made of one blood all 
nations of men.” This is a Scripture truth 
which I believe; yet God decreed that 
Canaan should be a servant of servants to 
his brother—that is, an abject slave in his 
posterity. This God effected 800 years 
afterwards, in the days of Joshua, when 
the Gibeonites were subjected to perpetual 
bondage, and made hewers of wood and 
drawers of water. Joshua ix. 23. 

Again, God ordained, as law-giver to 
Israel, that their captives taken in war 
should be enslaved. Deut. xx. 10 to 15. 

Again, God enacted that the Israelites 
should buy slaves of the heathen nations 
around them, and will them and their in¬ 
crease as property to their children forever. 
Lev. xxv. 44, 45, 46. All these nations 
were made of one blood. Yet God ordained 
that some should be “ chattel ” slaves to 
others, and gave his special aid to effect it. 
In view of this incontrovertible fact, how 
can I believe this passage disproves the 
lawfulness of slavery in the sight of God ? 
How can any sane man believe it, who 
believes the Bible? 

2d. His second Scripture reference to 
disprove the lawfulness of slavery in the 















18 


sight of God, is this : “ God has said a man j 
is better than a sheep.” This is a Scrip- ( 
ture truth which I fully believe—and I have 
no doubt, if we could ascertain what the 
Israelites had to pay for those slaves they 
bought with their money according to 
God’s law, in Levit. xxv. 44, that we should 
find they bad to pay more for them than 
they paid for sheep, for the reason assigned 
by the Saviour; that is, that a servant man is 
better than a sheep; for when he is done 
ploughing, or feeding cattle, and comes in 
from the field, he will, at his master’s bid¬ 
ding, prepare him his meal, and wait upon 
him till he eats it, while the master feels 
under no obligation even to thank him for 
it, because he has done no more than his 
duty. Luke xvii. 7, 8, 9. This, and other 
important duties, which the people of God 
bought their slaves to perform for them, 
by the permission of their Maker, were 
duties which sheep could not perform. 
But I cannot see what there is in it to blot 
out from the Bible a relation which God 
created, in which he made one man to be 
a slave to another. 

3d. His third Scripture reference to 
prove the unlawfulness of slavery in the 
sight of God, is this: “God commands 
children to obey their parents, and wives 
to obey their husbands.” This, I believe 
to be the will of Christ to Christian chil¬ 
dren and Christian wives—whether they 
are bond or free. But it is equally true 
that Christ ordains that Christianity shall 
not abolish slavery. 1 Cor. vii. 17—21, 
and that he commands servants to obey 
their masters and to count them worthy of 
all honor. 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2. It is also true, 
that God allowed Jewish masters to use 
the rod to make them do it—and to use 
it with the severity requisite to accomplish 
the object. Ex. xxi. 20, 21. It is equally 
true, that Jesus Christ ordains that a Chris¬ 
tian servant shall receive for the wrong he 
hath done. Col. iii. 25. My correspond¬ 
ent admits, without qualification, that if 
they are property, it is right. But the 
Bible says, they were property. Levit. xxv. 
44, 45, 46. 

The above reference, reader, enjoins the 
duty of two relations, which God ordained, 
but does not abolish a third relation which 
God has ordained; as the Scripture will 
prove, to which I have referred you, under 
the first reference made by my correspond¬ 
ent. 

4th. His fourth Scripture reference is, 

to the intention of Abraham to give his 


estate to a servant, in order to prove that 
servant was not a slave. “ What,” he says, 
“ property inherit property?” I answer, 
yes. Two years ago, in my county, W il¬ 
liam Hansbrough gave to his slaves his 
estate, worth forty or fifty thousand dol¬ 
lars. In the last five or six years, over 
tw r o hundred slaves, within a few miles ol 
me, belongingto various masters, have in¬ 
herited portions of their masters’ estates. 

To render slaves valuable, the Romans 
qualified them for the learned professions, 
and all the various arts. They were teach- 
ers, doctors, authors, mechanics, See. So 
with us, tradesmen of every kind are to be 
found among our slaves. Some of them are 
undertakers—some farmers—some over¬ 
seers, or stewards—some housekeepers— 
some merchants—some teamsters, and 
some money-lenders ; who give their mas¬ 
ters a portion of their income, and keep 
the balance. Nearly all of them have an 
income of their own—and was it not for 
the seditious spirit of the North, we would 
educate our slaves generally, and so fit 
them earlier for a more improved condi¬ 
tion, and higher moral elevation. 

But will all this, when duly certified, 
prove they are not slaves? No. Neither 
will Abraham’s intention to give one of his 
servants his estate, prove that he was not 
a slave. Who had higher claims upon 
Abraham, before he had a child, than this 
faithful slave, born in his house, reared by 
his hand, devoted to his interest, and faith¬ 
ful in every trust ? 

5th. His fifth reference, my correspond¬ 
ent says, “ forever sets the question at 
rest.” It is this: “Thou shalt not deliver 
unto his master, the servant which is es¬ 
caped from his master unto thee—he shall 
dwell with thee, even in that place which 
he shall choose, in one of thy gates, where 
it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress 
him.” 

This, my distinguished correspondent 
says, “ forever puts the question at rest.” 
My reader, I hope, will ask himself what 
question it puts to rest. He will please to 
remember, that it is brought to put this 
question to rest, “ Is slavery sinful in the 
sight of God ?” the Bible being judge—or 
“did God ever allow one man to hold 
property in another?” 

My correspondent admits this to be the 
question at issue. He asks, “What is 
slavery ?” And thus answers : “ It is the 
principle involved in holding man as prop- 
“ erty,” “ This,” he says; “ is the point at 
















19 


issue.” He says, “ if it be right to hold 
man as property, it is right to treat him 
as property,” &e. Now, conceding all in 
the argument, that can be demanded for 
this law about runaway slaves, yet it does 
not prove that slavery or holding property 
in man is sinful—because it is a part and 
parcel of the Mosaic law, given to Israel 
in the wilderness by the same God, who 
in the same wilderness enacted “ that of 
the heathen that were around about them, 
they should buy bond-men and bond-wo¬ 
man—also of the strangers that dwelt 
among them should they buy, and they 
should pass as an inheritance to their chil¬ 
dren after them, to possess them as bond- 
men forever.” Levit. xxv. 44. 

How can I admit that a prohibition to 
deliver up a runaway slave, under the law 
of Moses, is proof that there was no sla¬ 
very allowed under that law ? Here is the 
law from God himself, Levit. xxv. 44, au¬ 
thorizing the Israelites to buy slaves and 
transmit them and their increase as a pos¬ 
session to their posterity forever—and to 
make slaves of their captives taken in war. 
Deut. xx. 10—15. Suppose, forargument’s 
sake, I admit that God prohibited the de¬ 
livery back of one of these slaves, when he 
lied from his master—would that prove 
that he was not a slave before he lied ?— 
would that prove that he did not remain 
legally a slave in the sight of God, accord¬ 
ing to his own law, until he fled ? The 
passage proves the very reverse of that 
which it is brought to prove. It proves 
that the slave is recognized by God him¬ 
self as a slave, until he fled to the Israel¬ 
ites. My correspondent’s exposition of 
this law seems based upon the idea that 
God, who had held fellowship with slavery 
among his people for 500 years, and who 
had just given them a formal statute to 
legalize the purchase of slaves from the 
heathen, and to enslave their captives 
taken in war, was, nevertheless, desirous 
to abolish the institution. But, as if afraid 
to march directly up to his object, he was 
disposed to undermine what he was un¬ 
willing to attempt to overthrow. 

Upon the principle that man is prone to 
think God is altogether such an one as 
himself, we may account for such an in¬ 
terpretation at the present time, by men 
north of Mason & Dixon’s line. Our 
brethren there have held fellowship with 
this institution, by the constitutional oath 
they have taken to protect us in this prop- j 
erty. Unable, constitutionally, to over¬ 


throw the institution, they see, or think 
they see, a sanction in the law of God to 
undermine it, by opening their gates and 
letting our runaway slaves “ dwell among 
them where it liketh them best.” If I 
could be astonished at anything in this 
controversy, it would be to see sensible 
men engaged in the study of that part of 
the Bible which relates to the rights of 
property, as .established by the Almighty 
himself, giving in to the idea that the 
Judge of the world, acting in the character 
of a national law-giver, would legalize a 
property right in slaves, as he did —give 
full power to the master to govern—secure 
the increase as an inheritance to posterity 
for all time to come—and then add a clause 
to legalize a fraud upon the unsuspecting 
purchaser. For what better is it, under 
this interpretation? 

With respect to slaves purchased of the 
heathen, or enslaved by war, the law passed 
a clear title to them and their increase for¬ 
ever. With respect to the hired servants 
of the Hebrews, the law secured to the 
master a right to their service until the 
Sabbatic year or Jubilee—unless they 
were bought back by a near kinsman at a 
stated price in money when owned by a 
heathen master. But these legal rights, 
under these laws of heaven’s King, by this 
interpretation, are all canceled—for the 
pecuniary loss, there is no redress—and 
for the insult no remedy, whenever a 
“ liketh him best” man can induce the 
slave to runaway. And worse still, the 
community of masters thus insulted and 
swindled, according to this interpretation, 
are bound to show respect and afford pro¬ 
tection to the villains who practise it. 
W T ho can believe all this ? I judge our 
northern brethren will say, the Lord de¬ 
liver us from such legislation as this. So 
say we. What, then, does this runaway 
law mean? It means that the God of 
Israel ordained his people to be an asylum 
for the slave who fled from heathen cruelty 
to them for protection ; it is the law of 
nations—but surrendered under the Con¬ 
stitution by these States, who agreed to 
deliver them up. See, says God, ye op¬ 
press not the stranger. Thou shalt neither 
vex a stranger, nor oppress him. Ex. xxii. 
21 . 

His 6th reference to the Bible is this: 
“ Do to others as ye would they should do 
to you.” I have shown in the essay, that 
these words of our Saviour, embody the 
same moral principle, which is embodied 













20 


by Moses in Levit. xix. 18, in these words, 
“ Love thy neighbor as thyself.” In this 
we cannot be mistaken, because Jesus 
says there are but two sucli principles in 
God’s moral government— one of supreme 
love to God— another of love to our neigh- 
bor as ourself. To the everlasting confu- 
sion of the argument from moral precepts, 
to overthrow the positive institution of 
slavery, this moral precept was given to 
regulate the mutual duties of this very re¬ 
lation, which God by law ordained for the 
Jewish commonwealth. 

How can that which regulates the duty, 
overthrow the relation itself? 

His 7th reference is, “ They which are 
accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exer¬ 
cise lordship over them, but so it shall 
not be among you.” 

Turn to the passage, reader, in Mark x. 
42 ; and try youringenuity at expounding, 
and see if you can destroy one relation 
that has been created among men, because 
the authority given in another relation was 
abused. The Saviour refers to the abuse 
of State authority, as a warning to those 
who should be clothed with authority in 
his kingdom, not to abuse it, but to connect 
the use of it with humility. But how 
oflicial humility in the kingdom of Christ, 
is to rob States of the right to make their 
own laws, dissolve the relation of slavery 
recognized by the Saviour as a lawful re¬ 
lation, and overthrow the right of property 
in slaves as settled by God himself, I know 
not. Paul, in drawing the character of 
those who oppose slavery, in his letter to 
Timothy, says, (vi. 4,) they are “ proud, 
knowing nothing;” he means, that they 
were putfed with a conceit of their supe¬ 
rior sanctity, while they were deplorably ig¬ 
norant of the will of Christ on this subject. 
Is it not great pride that leads a man to 
think he is better than the Saviour ? Jesus 
held fellowship with, and enjoined subjec¬ 
tion to governments, which sanctioned 
slavery in its worst form—but abolitionists 
refuse fellowship for governments which 
have mitigated all its rigors. 

God established the relation by law, and 
bestowed the highest manifestations of his 
favor upon slaveholders; and has caused 
it to be written as with a sunbeam in the 
Scriptures. Yet such saints would be re¬ 
fused the ordinary tokens of Christian fel¬ 
lowship among abolitionists. If Abraham 
were on earth, they could not let him, 
consistently, occupy their pulpits, to tell 
of the things God has prepared for them 


that love him. Job himself would be unfit 
for their communion. Joseph would be 
placed on a level with pirates. Not a 
single church planted by the Apostles 
would make a fit home for our abolition 
brethren, (for they all had masters and 
slaves.) The Apostles and their minis¬ 
terial associates could not occupy their 
pulpits, for they fraternized with slavery, 
and upheld state authority upon the sub¬ 
ject. Now, I ask, with due respect for 
all parties, can sentiments which lead to 
such results as these, be held by any man, 
in the absence of pride of no ordinary 
character, whether he be sensible of it or 
not ? 

Again, whatever of intellect we may 
have—can that something which prompts 
to results like these be Bible knowledge ? 

Reference the 8th is favorable in sound, 
if not in sense. It is in these words, 
“ Neither be ye called masters , for one is 
your master, even Christ.” I am free to 
confess, it is difficult to repress the spirit 
which the prophet felt when he witnessed 
the zeal of his deluded countrymen, at 
Mount Carmel. I think a sensible man 
ought to know better, than to refer me to 
such a passage, to prove slavery unlawful; 
yet my correspondent is a sensible man. 
However, I will balance it by an equal au¬ 
thority, for dissolving another relation. 
“ Call no man father upon earth, for one 
is youi father in heaven.” 

When the last abolishes the relation be¬ 
tween parent and child, the first will abol¬ 
ish the relation between master and servant. 

The 9th reference to prove slavery un¬ 
lawful in the sight of God is this : “ He 
that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if 
he be found in his hand, he shall surely be 
put to death.” Wonderful! 

I suppose that no State has ever estab¬ 
lished domestic slavery, which did not find 
such a law necessary. It is this institution 
which makes such a law needful. Unless 
slavery exists, there would be no motive 
to steal a man. And, the danger is greater 
in a slave State than a free one. Virginia 
has such a law, and so have all the States 
of North America. 

Will these laws prove four thousand 
years hence that slavery did not exist in 
the United States? No—but why not? 
Because the statute will still exist, which 

j , 

authorizes us to buy bond-men aud bond- 
women with our money, and give them 
|| and their increase as an inheritance to our 
children, forever. So the Mosaic statute 

















still exists, which authorized the Jews to 
do the same thing, and God is its author. 

Reference the 10th is: “ Rob not the 
poor because he is poor. Let the oppressed 
go tree ; break every yoke ; deliver him 
that is spoiled out of the hand of the op¬ 
pressor. What doth the Lord require of 
thee but to do justly, love mercy, walk 
humbly with thy God. He that oppresseth 
the poor reproacheth his Maker.” This 
sounds very well, reader, yet I propose to 
make every man who reads me, confess , 
that these Scriptures will not condemn 
slavery. Answer me this question : Are 
these, and such like passages, in the Old 
Testament, from whence they are all taken, 
intended to reprove and condemn that 
people, for doing what God, in his law 
gave them a right to do? I know you 
must answer, they were not; consequently, 
you confess they do not condemn slayery ; 
because God gave them the right, by law, 
to purchase slaves of the heathen. Levit. 
xxv. 44. And to make slaves of their 
captives taken in war. Dent. xx. 14. 
The moral precepts of the Old or New 
Testament cannot make that wrong which 
God ordained to be his will, as he has sla¬ 
very. 

The 11th refe rence of my distinguished 
correspondent to the sacred volume, to 
prove that slavery is contrary to the will 
of Jesus Christ and sinful, is in these words: 
“ Masters, give unto your servants that 
which is just and equal.” The argument 
of my correspondent is this, that slavery is 
a relation, in which rights based uponjrws- 
tice cannot exist. 

I answer, God ordained, after man 
sinned, that he “ should eat bread (that is, 
have food and raiment) in the sweat of his 
face.” 

He has since ordained, that some should 
be slaves to others, (as we have proved 
under the first reference.) Therefore , 
when food and raiment are withheld from 
him in slavery, it is unjust. 

God has ordained food and raiment, as 
wages for the sweat of the face. Christ 
has ordained that with these, whether in 
slavery or freedom, his disciples shall be 
content. 

The relation of master and slave, says 
Gibbon, existed in every province and in 
every family of the Roman Empire. Jesus 
ordains in the 13th chapter of Romans, 
from the 1st to the end of the 7th verse, 
and in 1 Peter, 2d chapter, and 13th. 14th, 
and 15th verses, that the legislative author- 


2l_ _ 

ity, which created the relation, should be 
obeyed and honored by his disciples. But 
while he thus legalizes the relation of mas¬ 
ter and slave as established by the civil law, 
he proceeds to prescribe the mutual duties 
which the parties, when they come into 
his kingdom, must perform to each other. 

The reference of my correspondent to 
disprove the relation , is a part of what 
Jesus has prescribed on this subject to 
regulate the duties of the relation, and is 
itself proof that the relation existed—that 
its legality was recognized—and its duties 
prescribed by the Son of God through the 
Holy Ghost given to the Apostles. 

The 12th reference is, “Let as many 
servants as are under the yoke, count their 
masters worthy of all honor. And they 
that have believing masters, let them not 
despise them because they are brethren, 
but rather do them cservice, because they 
are faithful and beloved, partakers of the 
benefit.” If my reader will turn to my 
remarks, in my first essay upon this Scrip¬ 
ture, he will cease to wonder that it fails 
to convince me that slavery is sinful. I 
should think the wonder would be, that 
any man ever quoted it for such a purpose. 

And lastly. My correspondent informs 
me that the Greek word “ doulos,” trans¬ 
lated' servant, means hired servant and not 
slave. 

I reply, that the primary meaning of this 
Greek word, is in a singular state of pres¬ 
ervation. God, as if foreseeing and pro¬ 
viding for this controversy, has caused, 
in his providence, that its meaning in 
Greek dictionaries shall be thus given, 
“the opposite of free.” Now, readers, 
what is the opposite of free ? Is it a state 
somewhere between freedom and slavery? 
If freedom, as a condition, has an oppo¬ 
site, that opposite state is indicated by this 
very word “ doulos.” So says every Greek 
lexicographer. I ask, if this is not wonder¬ 
ful, that the Holy Ghost has used a term, 
so incapable of deceiving, and yet that 
that term should be brought forward for 
the purpose of deception. Another re¬ 
markable fact is this: the English word 
servant, originally meant precisely the 
same thing as the Greek word “doulos;” 
that is, says Dr. Johnson in his Dictionary, 
it meant formerly a captive taken in war, 
and reserved for slavery. These are two 
remarkable facts in the providence ofGod. 
But, reader, I will give you a Bible key, 
by which to decide for yourself, without 
foreign aid, whether servant, when it de- 

O' ' 
















22 


notes a relation in society, where the other 
side of that relation is master, means hired 
servant . “ Every man’s servant that is 

bought for money shall eat thereof; but a 
hired servant shall not eat thereof.” Exod. 
xii. 44, 45. Here are two classes of serv¬ 
ants alluded to—one was allowed to eat 
the Passover, the night Israel left Egypt; 
the other not. What was the difference 
in these two classes ? Were they both 
hired servants ? If so, it should read, Every 
hired servant that is bought for money shall 
eat thereof; but a hired servant that is 
bought for money, shall not eat thereof.” 
My reader, why has the Holy Ghost, in 
presiding over the inspired pen, been thus 
particular? Is it too much to say, it was to 
provide against the delusion of the 19th 
century, which learned men would be prac¬ 
tising upon unlearned men, as well as 
themselves, on the subject of slavery ? 
Who, with the Bible and their learning, 
would not be able to discover, that a serv¬ 
ant bought with money was a slave ; and 
that a hired servant was. a free man? 
Again, Levit. xxv. 44, 45, and 46 : “ Thy 
bond-servants shall be of the heathen that 
are round about you, and of the children 
of the strangers that do sojourn among 
you, of them shall ye buy. And they shall 
be your possession, and ye shall take them 
as an inheritance, for your children after 
you, to inherit them fora possession, they 
shall be your bond-men forever.” 

Reader, were these hired servants? If 
so, thev hired themselves for a Ions - time. 
And what is very singular, they hired their 
posterity for all time to come. And what 
is still more singular, the wages were paid, 
not to the servant, but to a former owner 
or master. And what is still stranger, 
they hired themselves and their posterity 
to be an inheritance to their master and 
his posterity forever! Yet, reader, I am 
told by my distinguished correspondent, 
that servant in the Scriptures, when used 
to designate a relation, means only hired 
servant. Again, I ask, were the enslaved 
captives in Deut. xx. 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 
hired servants ? 

One of the greatest and best of men ever 
raised at the North, (I mean Luther Rice,) 
once told me when I quoted the law of 
God for the purchase of slaves from the 
heathen, (in order to silence his argument 
about “ doulos,” and hired servant,) I say 
he told me positively, there was no such 
law. Wlien I opened the Bible and showed 
it to him, his shame was very visible. 


(And I hope he is not the only great and 
good man, that God will put to shame for 
being ignorant of his Word.) But he never 
opened his mouth to me about slavery again 
while he lived. 

If my reader does no better than he did, 
at least let him not fight against God for 
j establishing the institution ol “chattel 
slavery in his kingdom, nor against me lor 
believing he did do it. But, reader, il you 
have the hardihood to insist that these were 
hired servants, and not slaves after all, 
then, I answer, that ours are hired servants 
too, and not slaves ; and so the dispute 
ends favorably to the South, and it is lawful 
for us, according to abolition admissions, 
to hold them to servitude. For ours, we 
paid money to a former owner; so did the 
’Jews for theirs. The increase of ours 
passes as an inheritance to our children, 
so did the increase of the Jewish servants 
pass as an inheritance to their children, 
to be an inheritance forever. And all this 
took place by the direction of God to his 
chosen people. 

My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jel- 
ferson, that Jehovah has no attributes 
that will harmonize w ith slavery ; and that 
all men are born free and equal. Now, I 
say let him throw away his Bible as Mr. 
Jefferson did his, and then they will befit 
companions. But never disgrace the Bible 
by making Mr. Jefferson its expounder, 
nor Mr. Jefferson by deriving his senti¬ 
ments from it. Mr. Jefferson did not bow 
to the authority of the Bible, and on this 
subject I do not bow to him. How can 
I any man, who believes the Bible, admit 
for a moment that God intended to teach 
mankind by the Bible, that all are born 
free and equal ? 

Men who engage in this controversy 
ought to look into the Bible, and see what 
is in it about slavery. I do not know how 
to account for such men saying, as my 
correspondent does, that the slave of the 
Mosaic law, purchased of the heathen, 
was a hired servant; and that both he and 
the Hebrew hired servant of the same law, 
had a passport from God to run away from 
their masters w'itli impunity , to prove which 
is the object of one of his quotations. 
Again, New 7 Testament servants and mas¬ 
ters are not the servants and masters of the 
Mosaic law’, but the servants and masters 
of the Roman empire. To go to the law' 
of Moses to find out the statutes of the 
| Roman empire, is folly. Yet on this sub¬ 
ject the difference is not great, and so far 
















23 


as humanity {in the abolition sense of it) i 
is concerned, is in favor of the Roman law. i 

The laws of each made slaves to be 
property, and allowed them to be bought 
and sold. See Gibbon’s Rome, vol. i. pp. 
25, 26, and Lev. xxv. 44, 45, 46. The 
laws of each allowed prisoners taken in 
war to be enslaved. See Gibbon as above, 
and Deut. xx. 10—15. The difference was 
this: the Roman law allowed men taken 
in battle to be enslaved—the Jewish law 
required the men taken in battle to be put 
to death, and to enslave their wives and 
children. In the case of the Midianites, 
the mercy of enslaving some of the women 
was denied them because they had enticed 
the Israelites into sin, and subjected them 
to a heavy judgment under Balaam’s coun¬ 
sel , and for a reason not assigned, the 
mercy of slavery was denied to the male 
children in this special case. See Num¬ 
bers xxxi. 15, 16, 17. 

The first letter to Timothy, while at 
Ephesus, if rightly understood, would do 
much to stay the hands of men, who have 
more zeal than knowledge on this subject. 
See again what I have written in my first 
essay on this letter. In addition to what 
I have there said, I would state, that the 
u other doctrine ,” 1 Tim. i. 2, which Paul 
says, must not be taught, I take to be a 
principle tantamount to this, that Jesus 
Christ proposed to subordinate the civil 
to ecclesiastical authority. 

The doctrine which was u according to 
godliness ,” 1 Tim. vi. 3, I take to be a 
principle which subordinated the church, 
or Christ in his members, to civil govern- 
ments, or “ the powers that be.” One 
principle was seditious, and when consum¬ 
mated must end in the man of sin. The 
other principle was practically a quiet sub¬ 
mission to government, as an ordinance 
of God in the hands of men. 

The Abolitionists, at Ephesus, in at¬ 
tempting to interfere with the relations of 
slavery, and to unsettle the rights of prop¬ 
erty, acted upon a principle, which states¬ 
men must see, would, in the end, subject 
the whole frame-work of government to 
the supervision of the church, and termi¬ 
nate in the man of sin, or a pretended 
successor of Christ, sitting in the temple 
of God, and claiming a right to reign over, 
and control the civil governments of the 
world. The Apostle, therefore,Ichapter ii. 1, 
to render the doctrine of subordination to 
the State a very prominent doctrine, and to j 
cause the knowledge of it to spread among 


all who attended their worship, orders 
that the very first thing done by the church 
should be, that of making supplication, 
prayers, and intercessions, and giving God 
thanks for all men that were placed in 
authority, by the State, for the administra¬ 
tion of civil government. He assigns the 
reason for this injunction, “ that we may 
lead a quiet and peaceable life in all god¬ 
liness and honesty.” 

My correspondent complains, that abo¬ 
litionists at the North are not safe when 
they come among us. They are much 
safer than the saints of Ephesus would 
have been in the Apostolic day, if Paul 
would have allowed the seditious doctrine 
to be propogated which our northern 
brethren think it such a merit to preach, 
when it subjects them to no risk. How 
can they expect, in the nature of things, 
to lead a quiet and peaceable life when 
they come among us ? They are organized 
to overthrow our sovereignty—to put our 
lives in peril, and to trample upon Bible 
principles, by which the rights of property 
are to be settled. 

Questions and strifes of words charac¬ 
terized the disputes of the Abolitionists at 
Ephesus about slavery. It is amusing and 
painful to see the questions and strifes of 
words in the piece of my correspondent. 
Many of these questions are about our 
property right in slaves. The substance of 
them is this: that the present title is not 
good, because the original title grew out 
of violence and injustice. But, reader, 
our original title was obtained in the same 
way which God in his law authorized his 
people to obtain theirs. They obtained 
their slaves by purchase of those who made 
them captives in the hazards of war, or by 
conquest with their own sword. My cor¬ 
respondent speaks at one time as if ours 
were stolen in the first instance ; but, as 
if forgetting that, in another place he says, 
that so great is the hazard attending the 
wars of Africa, that one life is lost for 
every two that are taken captive and sold 
into slavery. If this is stealing, it has at 
least the merit of being more manly than 
some that is practised among us. 

A case seems to have been preserved 
by the Holy Ghost, as if to rebuke this 
abolition doctrine about property rights 
It is the case of the King of Ammon, a 
heathen, on the one side, and Jephtha, 
who “ obtained a good report by faith,” 
on the other. It is consoling to us that 
we occupy the ground that Jephtha did— 











24 


and we may well suspect the correctness 
of the other side, because it is the ground 
occupied by Ammon. The case is this: 
A heathen is seen menacing Israel. Jephtha 
is selected by his countrymen to conduct 
the controversy. He sends a message to 
his menacing neighbor, to know why he 
had come out against him. He returned 
for answer, that it was because Israel held 
property to which they had no right. 
Jephtha answered, they had had it in pos¬ 
session for three hundred years. Ammon 
replied, they had no right to it, because it 
was obtained in the first instance by vio¬ 
lence. Jephtha replied, that it was held by 
the same sort of a title as that by which 
Ammon held his possessions—that is to 
say, whatever Ammon’s god Chemosh 
enabled him to take in war, he considered 
to be his of right; and that Israel’s God 
had assisted them to take this property, 
and they considered the title to be such 
an one as Ammon was bound to acknowl¬ 
edge. 

C? # t 

Ammon stickled forthe eternal principle 
of righteousness, and contended that it 
had been violated in the first instance. 
But, reader, in the appeal made to the 
sword, God vindicated Israel’s title. 
Jud ges xi. 12—32. 

And if at the present time, we take 
ground with Ammon about the rights of 
property, I will not say how much work 
we may have to do, nor who will prove the 
rightful owner of my correspondent’s 
domicil; but certain I am, that by his 
Ammonitish principle of settling the rights 
of property, he will be ousted. 

Reader, in looking over the printed re¬ 
ply of my correspondent to his southern 
friend, which occupies ten columns of a 
large newspaper, to see if I had overlooked 
any Scripture, I find I have omitted to 
notice one reference to the sacred volume, 
which was made by him, for the general 
purpose of showing that the Scriptures 
abound with moral principles, and call 
into exercise moral feelings inconsistent 
with slavery. It is this: “Inasmuch as 
you have done it unto one of the least of 
these my brethern, you have done it unto 
me.” The design of the Savior, in the 
parable from which these words are taken, 
in Matt. 25th, is, to impress strongly upon 
the human mind, that character , deficient 
in correct moral feeling, will prove fatal to 
human hopes in a coming day. 

But, reader, will you stop and ask your¬ 
self, “ What is correct moral feeling ?” 


Is it abhorrence and hatred to the will and 
pleasure of God ? Certainly not. Then 
it is not abhorrence and hatred of slavery, 
which seems to be a cardinal virtue at the 
North. It has been the will and pleasure 
of God to institute slavery by a law of his 
own, in that kingdom over which he im¬ 
mediately presided ; and to give it his 
sanction when instituted by the laws of 
men. The most elevated morality is en¬ 
joined under both Testaments, upon the 
parties in this relation. There is nothing 
in the relation inconsistent with its exer¬ 
cise. 

My reader will remember that the sub¬ 
ject in dispute is, whether involuntary and 
hereditary slavery was ever lawful in the 
sight of God, the Bible being judge. 

1. I have shown by the Bible, that God 
decreed this relation between the posterity 
of Canaan, and the posterity of Shem and 
Japheth. 

2. I have shown that God executed this 
decree by aiding the posterity of Shem, 
(at a time when “ they were holiness to 
the Lord,”) to enslave the posterity of 
Canaan in the days of Joshua. 

3. I have shown that when God ratified 
the covenant of promise with Abraham, 
he recognized Abraham as the owner of 
slaves he had bought with his money of 
the stranger, and recorded his approbation 
of the relation, by commanding Abraham 
to circumcise them. 

4. I have shown that when he took 
Abraham’s posterity by the hand in Egypt, 
five hundred years afterwards, he publicly 
approbated the same relation, by permit¬ 
ting every slave they had bought with their 
money to eat the passover, while he refused 
the same privilege to their hired servants. 

5. I have shown that God, as their na¬ 
tional lawgiver, ordained by express stat¬ 
ute, that they should buy slaves of the 
nations around them, (the seven devoted 
nations excepted,) and that these slaves 
and their increase should be a perpetual 
inheritance to their children. 

6. 1 have shown that God ordained sla¬ 
very by law for their captives taken in war, 
while he guarantied a successful issue to 
their wars, so long as they obeyed him. 

7. I have shown that when Jesus ordered 
his Gospel to be published through the 
world, the relation of master and slave 
existed by law in every province and 
family of the Roman Empire, as it had 
done in the Jewish commonwealth for 
fifteen hundred years. 






















25 


1 


8. I have shown that Jesus ordained, 
that the legislative authority, which created 
this relation in that empire, should be 
obeyed and honored as an ordinance of 
God, as all government is declared to be. 

9. I have shown that Jesus has pre¬ 
scribed the mutual duties of this relation 
in his kingdom. 

10. And lastly, I have shown, that in an 
attempt by his professed followers to dis¬ 
turb this relation in the Apostolic churches, 
Jesus orders that fellowship shall be dis¬ 
claimed with all such disciples, as sedi¬ 
tious persons—whose conduct was not 
only dangerous to the State, but destructive 
to the true character of the Gospel dispen¬ 
sation. 

This being the case, as will appear by 
the recorded language of the Bible, to 
which we have referred you, reader, of 
what use is it to argue against it from 
moral requirements ? 

They regulate the duties of this and all 
other lawful relations among men—but 
they cannot abolish any relation, ordained 
or sanctioned of God, as is slavery. 

I would be understood as referring for 
proof of this summary, to my first as well 
as my present essay. 

When I first wrote, I did suppose the 
Scriptures had been examined by leading 
men in the opposition, and that prejudice 
had blinded their eyes. I am now of a 
different opinion. What will be the effect 
of this discussion, I will not venture to 
predict, knowing human nature as well as 
I do. But men who are capable of exer¬ 
cising candor must see, that it is not 
against an institution unknown to the 
Bible, or declared by its author to be sinful, 
that the North is waging war. 

Their hostility must be transferred from 
us to God, who established slavery by law 
in that kingdom over which he conde¬ 
scended to preside; and to Jesus, who 
recognized it as a relation established in 
Israel by his father, and in the Roman 
Government by men, which he bound his 
followers to obey and honor. 

In defending the institution as one 
which has the sanction of our Maker, I 
have done what I considered, under the 
peculiar circumstances of our common 
country, to be a Christian duty. I have 
set down nought in malice. I have used 
no sophistry. I have brought to the in¬ 
vestigation of the subject, common sense. 
I have not relied on powers of argument, 
learning, or ingenuity. These would 


neither put the subject into the Bible nor 
take it out. It is a Bible question. I 
have met it fairly, and fully, according to 
the acknowledged principles of the Abo¬ 
litionists. I have placed before my reader 
what is in the Bible, to prove that slavery 
has the sanction of God, and is not sinful. 
[ have placed before him what I suppose 
to be the quintessence of all that can be 
gleaned from the Bible to disprove it. 

I have made a few plain reflections to 
aid the understanding of my reader. What 
I have written was designed for those who 
reverence the Bible as their counsellor— 
who take it for rules of conduct, and de¬ 
votional sentiments. 

I now commit it to God for his blessing, 
with a fervent desire, that if I have mis¬ 
taken his will in anything, he will not 
suffer my error to mislead another. 

THORNTON STRINGFELLOW. 


[From the Religious Herald.] 

Brother Sands: The following letter, in sub¬ 
stance, was written to a brother in Kentucky, who 
solicited a copy of my slavery pamphlet, as well 
as my opinion on the movement in that State, on 
the subject of emancipation. This letter was de¬ 
signed to form an appendix to the two essays in 
the pamphlet which were first published in the 
Herald. 

If you can spare the space for so large an article, 
I think you can find, in the present state of things 
in our country, some justification for the effort to 
diffuse Bible knowledge upon this subject, among 
the people. Yours, 

THORNTON STRINGFELLOW. 

Jdne 8th, 1849. 

Dear Brother: I received your letter 
of April 2d, and the slavery pamphlet 
which you requested me to send you, I 
herewith enclose. 

When I published the first essay in that 
pamphlet, I intended to invite a discussion 
with Elder Galusha, of New York; and 
when I received Mr. Galusha’s letter to 
Dr. Fuller, I still expected a discussion. 
But after manifesting, on his part, great 
pleasure in the outset, for the opportunity 
tendered him by a southern man, to dis¬ 
cuss this subject, he ultimately declined 
it. This being the case, I did not at that 
time present as full a view of the subject 
as the Scriptures furnish. I have since 
thought of supplying this deficiency ; and 
the condition of things in Kentucky fur¬ 
nishes a fit opportunity for saying to you, 
what I said to a brother in Pennsylvania, 


i 













26 


who, like yourself, requested me to send 
him a copy of my pamphlet. 

I do not know that I could add anything, 
beyond what I said to him, that would be 
useful to you. To this brother I said, 
among other things, that Dr. Wayland (in 
his discussion with Dr. Fuller) relied prin¬ 
cipally upon two arguments , used by all 
the intelligent abolitionists, to overthrow 
the weight of Scriptural authorityin sup¬ 
port of slavery. The first of these argu¬ 
ments is designed to neutralize the sanction 
given to slavery by the law of Moses ; and 
the second is designed to neutralize the 
sanction given to slavery ky the New Tes¬ 
tament. 

The Dr. frankly admits, that the law of 
Moses did establish slavery in the Jewish 
Commonwealth ; and he admits with equal 
frankness, that it was incorporated as an 
element in the Gospel church. For the 
purpose, however, of destroying the sanc¬ 
tion thus given to the legality of the rela¬ 
tion under the law of Moses, he assumes 
two things in relation to it, which are ex¬ 
pressly contradicted by the law. He as¬ 
sumes, in the first place, that the Almighty, 
under the law, gave a special permission to 
the Israelites to enslave the seven devoted 
nations, as a punishment for their sins. 
He then assumes, in the second place, that 
this special permission to enslave the seven 
nations, prohibited, by implication, the en¬ 
slaving of all other nations. The conclu¬ 
sion which the Dr. draws from the above 
assumptions is this—that a special permis¬ 
sion under the law, to enslave a particular 
people, as a punishment for their sins, is 
not a general permission under the Gospel, 
to enslave all, or any other people. The 
premises here assumed, and from which 
this conclusion is drawn, are precisely the 
reverse of what is recorded in the Bible. 

The Bible statement is this : that the 
Israelites under the law, so far from beino- 
permitted or required to enslave the seven 
nations, as a punishment for their sins, 
were expressly commanded to destroy them 
utterly. Here is the proof—Deut. vii. 1 
and 2: “When the Lord thy God shall 
bring thee into the land whither thou go- 
est to possess it, and hath cast out many 
nations before thee, the Hittites, and the 
Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the 
Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the 
Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations 
greater and mightier than thou ; and when 
the Lord thy God shall deliver them before 
thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly 


destroy them, thou shalt make no covenant 
with them, nor show mercy unto them.’ 7 
And again, in Deut. xx. 16 and 17 : “ But 
of the cities of these people, which the 
Lord thy God doth give thee for an inher¬ 
itance, thou shalt save alive nothing that 
breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy 
them, namely, the Flittites, and the Amo¬ 
rites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, 
the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord 
thy God hath commanded thee.” This law 
was delivered by Moses, and was executed 
by Joshua some years afterwards, to the 
letter. 

Here is the proof of it, Josh. xi. 14 to 
20 inclusive : “And all the spoil of these 
cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel 
took for a prey unto themselves ; but every 
man they smote with the edge of the sword 
until they had destroyed them, neither left 
they any to breathe. 

“ As the Lord commanded Moses his ser¬ 
vant, so did Moses command Joshua, and 
so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of 
all that the Lord commanded Moses. So 
Joshua took all that land, the hills and all 
the south country, and all the land of 
Goshen, and the valley and the plain, and 
the mountain of Israel, and the valley of 
the same. Even from the mount Halak 
that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baalgad, 
in the valley of Lebanon, under mount 
H.ermon, and all their kings he took, and 
smote them and slew them. Joshua made 
war a long time with all those kings. There 
was not a city that made peace with the 
children of Israel, save the Hivites, the in¬ 
habitants of Gibcon, all others they took 
in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden 
their hearts, that they should come against 
Israel in battle, that he might destroy them 
utterly, and that they might have no favor, 
but that he might destroy them, as the Lord 
commanded Moses.” In this account of 
their destruction , the Gibeonites, who de¬ 
ceived Joshua, are excepted, and the rea¬ 
son given is, that Joshua in their case, 
failed to ask counsel at the mouth of the 
Lord. Plere is the proof: “And the men 
took of them victuals, and asked not 
counsel of the mouth of the Lord.” (Josh, 
ix. 14.) This counsel Joshua was ex¬ 
pressly commanded to ask, when he was 
ordained some time before, to be the ex¬ 
ecutor of God’s legislative will, by Moses. 
Here is the proof, (Numb, xxvii. 18 to 23 
inclusive :) “ And the Lord said unto 

Moses, Take thee Joshua, the son of Nun, 
a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thy 














27 


hand upon him ; and set him before Eleazar | 
the priest, and before all the congregation; ; 
and give him a charge in their sight. And 
thou shalt put some of thine honor upon 
him, that all the congregation of the chil- 
dren of Israel may be obedient. Jlnd he 
shall stand before Eleazar the priest . who 
shall ask counsel for him, after the judgment 
of Urim before the Lord: at his word shall 
they go out, and at his word shall they come 
in, both he and all the children of Israel 
with him, even all the congregation. And 
Moses did as the Lord commanded him ; 
and he took'Joshua, and set him before 
Eleazar the priest, and before all the con¬ 
gregation. And he laid his hands upon 
him, and gave him a charge , as the Lord 
commanded by the hand, of Moses .” These 
scriptures furnish a palpable contradiction 
oi the first assumption, that is—that the 
Lord gave a special permission to enslave 
the seven nations. The Lord ordered that 
they should be destroyed utterly. 

As to the second assumption, so far 
from the Israelites being prohibited by im¬ 
plication, from enslaving the subjects of 
other nations, they were expressly author¬ 
ized by the law to make slaves by war, of 
any other nation. Here is the proof— 
Deut. xx. 10 to 17 inclusive: ‘‘When 
thou comest nigh unto a city to fight 
against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 
And it shall be if it make thee answer of 
peace, and open unto thee, then it shall 
be, that all the people that is found there¬ 
in, shall be tributaries unto thee, and they 
shall serve thee. And if it will .make no 
peace with thee, but will make war against 
thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And 
when the Lord thy God hath delivered it 
into thy hands, then shalt thou smite every 
male thereof with the edge of the sword. 
But the women and the little ones, and the 
cattle, and all that is in the city, even all 
the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thy¬ 
self; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine 
enemies, which the Lord thy God hath 
given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all 
the cities which are very far off from thee 
which are not of the cities of these nations. 
But of the cities of these people, which the 
Lord thy God doth give thee for an inherit¬ 
ance, thou shall save alive nothing that 
breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy 
them, namely, the Hitlites , and the Jlmo- 
riles , the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the 
Hivites, and the Jebusit.es, as the Lord thy 
God hath commanded theeP They were 
authorized also by the law, to purchase 


slaves with money of any nation except 
the seven. Here is the proof—Lev. xxv. 
44, 45, and 46: “ Both thy bond-men and 
thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, 
shall be of the heathen that are round 
about you; (that is, round about the coun¬ 
try given them of God, which was the 
country of the seven nations they were 
soon to occupy;) of them shall ye buy 
bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, 
of the children of the strangers that do 
sojourn among you, (that is, the mixed 
multitude of strangers which came up with 
them from Egypt, mentioned in Exodus 
xii. 38,) of them shall ye buy, and of their 
families that are with you, which they 
begat in your land ; and they shall be your 
possession. And ye shall take them as an 
inheritance for your children after you, to 
inherit them for a possession, they shall be 
your bond-men forever,” 

Now, let it be noted that this first law, 
of Deut. xx. above referred to, which au¬ 
thorized them to make slaves by war of 
any other nation, was executed for the first 
time, under the direction of Moses him¬ 
self, when thirty-two thousand of the Mid- 
ianites were enslaved. These slaves were ■ 
not of the seven nations. 

And it is worthy of further remark, that 
of each half, into which the Lord had these 
slaves divided, he claimed for his portion, 
one slave of every five hundred for the 
priests, and one slave of every fifty lor the 
Levites. These slaves he gave to the 
priests and Levites, who were his repre¬ 
sentatives, to be their property forever— 
Numb. xxxi. These scriptures palpably 
contradict the Dr.’s second assumption— 
that is, that they were prohibited by impli¬ 
cation from enslaving the subjects of any 
other nation. The Dr.’s assumptions be¬ 
ing the antipodes of truth, they cannot 
furnish a conclusion that is warranted by 
the truth. . 

The conclusion authorized by the truth, 
is this: that the making of slaves by war, 
and the purchase of slaves with money, 
was legalized by the Almighty in the Jew¬ 
ish Commonwealth, as regards the subjects 
of all nations except the seven. 

The second argument of the Dr.’s, as I 
remarked, is designed to neutralize the 
sanction given to slavery in the New Test¬ 
ament. 

The Dr. frankly admits that slavery was 
sanctioned by the Apostles in the Apos¬ 
tolic churches. But to neutralize this 
sanction, he resorts to two more assump- 












28 


tions, not only without proof, but palpably 
contradicted by the Old and New Testa¬ 
ment text. The first assumption is this— 
that polygamy and divorce were both sins 
under the law of Moses, although sanctioned 
by the law. And the second assumption 
is, that polygamy and divorce are known 
to be sins under the Gospel, not by any 
Gospel teaching, or prohibition, but by the 
general principles of morality. From these 
premises the conclusion is drawn, that al¬ 
though slavery was sanctioned in the 
Apostolic church, yet it was a sin, because, 
like polygamy and divorce, it was contrary 
to the principles of the moral law. The 
premises from which this conclusion is 
drawn, are at issue with the word of God, 
and therefore the conclusion must be false. 
The first thing here assumed is, that polyg-' 
amy and divorce, although sanctioned by 
the law of Moses, were both sins under 
that law. Now, so far from this being 
true, as to polygamy, it is a fact that polyg¬ 
amy was not only sanctioned, when men 
chose to practise it, but it was expressly 
enjoined by the law in certain cases, and 
a most humiliating penalty annexed to the 
' breach of the command. Dent. xxv. 5 —9. 
As sin is defined by the Holy Ghost to be 
a transgression of the law, it is impossible 
that polygamy could have been a sin under 
the law, unless it was a sin to obey the 
law, and an act of righteousness to trans¬ 
gress it. That polygamy was a sin under 
the law, therefore, is palpably false. 

As to divorce , the Almighty gave it the 
full and explicit sanction of his authority, 
in the law of Moses, for various causes. 
(Deut. xxiv. 1.) For those causes, therefore, 
divorce could not have been a sin under 
the law, unless human conduct, in exact 
accordance with the law of God, was sin¬ 
ful. The first thing assumed by the Dr., 
therefore, that polygamy and divorce were 
both sins, under the law, is proved to be 
false. They were lawful, and therefore, 
could not be sinful. 

The Dr.’s second assumption (with re¬ 
spect to polygamy and divorce,) is this, 
that they are known under the Gospel to 
be sins, not by the prohibitory precepts of 
the Gospel, but by the general principles 
of morality. This assumption is certainly 
a very astonishing one—for Jesus Christ 
in one breath has uttered language as per¬ 
fectly subversive of all authority for polyg¬ 
amy and divorce in his kingdom, as light 
is subversive of darkness. The Pharisees, 
ever desirous of exposing him to the pre¬ 


judices and passions of the people, “ asked 
him in the presence of great multitudes, 
who came with him from Galilee into the 
coasts of Judea beyond Jordan,” whether 
he admitted, with Moses, the legality of 
divorce for every cause. Their object was 
to provoke him to the exercfte of legisla¬ 
tive authority; to whom he promptly re¬ 
plied, that God made man at the beginning, 
male and female, and ordained that the 
male and female by marriage, should be 
one flesh. And for satisfactory reasons, 
had sanctioned divorce among Abraham’s 
seed; and then adds, as a law-giver, 

“ But I say unto you, that whosoever shall 
put away his wife, (except for fornica¬ 
tion,) and shall marry another, committeth 
adultery ; and if a woman put away her 
husband, and marry again, she committeth 
adultery. Here polygamy and divorce die 
together. The law of Christ is, that neither 
party shall put the other away—that either 
party, takinganothercompanion, while the 
first companion lives, is guilty of adultery 
—consequently, polygamy and divorce are 
prohibited forever, unless this law is violated 
—and that violation is declared to be 
adultery, which excludes from his kingdom. 

1 Cor. vi. 9. After the church was or¬ 
ganized, the Holy Ghost, by Paul, com¬ 
mands, let not the wife depart from her 
husband, but, and if she depart let her re¬ 
main unmarried—and let not the husband 
put away his wife, 1 Cor. vii. 10. Here 
divorce is prohibited to both parties; a 
second marriage according to Christ, 
would be adultery, while the first compan¬ 
ion lives; consequently ,polygamy is pro¬ 
hibited also. 

This second assumption, therefore, that 
polygamy and divorce are known to be 
sins by moral principles and not by pro¬ 
hibitory precepts, is swept away by the 
words of Christ, and the teaching of the 
Holy Ghost. These unauthorized and 
dangerous assumptions are the founda¬ 
tion, upon which the abolition structure 
is made to rest by the distinguished Dr. 
Wayland. 

The facts with respect to polygamy and 
divorce, warrant precisely the opposite 
conclusion ; that is, that if slavery under 
the Gospel is sinful, then its sinfulness 
would have been made known by the 
Gospel, as has been done with respect to 
polygamy and divorce. All three; polyg¬ 
amy, divorce and slavery, were sanctioned 
by the law of Moses. But under the 
Gospel, slavery has been sanctioned in the 














29 


church, while polygamy and divorce have 
been excluded from the church. It is mani¬ 
fest, therefore, that under the Gospel, po¬ 
lygamy and divorce have been made sins, 
by prohibition , while slavery remains law¬ 
ful beca use sanctioned and continued. The j 
lawfulness of slavery under the Gospel, rests 
upon the sovereign pleasure of Christ, in 
permitting it; and the sinfulness of polyg¬ 
amy and divorce, upon his sovereign pleas¬ 
ure in prohibiting their continuance. The 
law of Christ gives to the relation of sla¬ 
very its full sanction. That law is to be 
found, first, in the admission, by the Apos¬ 
tles, of slaveholders and their slaves into 
the Gospel church ; second, in the positive 
injunction by the Holy Ghost, of obedience 
on the part of Christian slaves in this rela¬ 
tion, to their believing masters; third, in 
the absence of any injunction upon the 
believing master, under any circumstances, 
to dissolve this relation ; fourth, in the 
abscence of any instruction from Christ or 
the Apostles, that the relation is sinful; 
and lastly, in the injunction of the Holy 
Ghost, delivered by Paul, to withdraw horn 
all such as leach that this relation is sinful. 
Human conduct in exact accordance with 
the law of Christ thus proclaimed, and 
thus expounded by the Holy Ghost, in the 
conduct and teaching of the Apostles, 
cannot be sinful. 

There are other portions of God’s Word, 
in the light of which we may add to our 
stock of knowledge on this subject. For 
instance, the Almighty by Moses legalized 
marriage between female slaves and Abra- 
ham’s male descendants. But under this 
law the wife remained a slave still. If she 
belonged to the husband, then this law 
gave freedom to her children ; but if she 
belonged to another man, then her chil¬ 
dren, though born in lawful wedlock, were 
hereditary slaves. Exod. xxi. 4. Again, 
if a man marries his own slave, then he 
lost the right to sell her—if he divorced 
her, then she gained her freedom. Deut. 
xxii. 10 to 14, inclusive. Again, there was 
a law from God which granted rights to 
Abraham’s sons under a matrimonial con¬ 
tract ; for a violation of the rights conferred 
by this law, a free woman , and her seducer, 
forfeited their lives, Deut. xxi. 23 and 24; 
also 13 to 21, inclusive. But for the 
same offence, a slave only exposed herself 
to stripes, and her seducer , to the penalty 
of a sheep. Levit. xix. 20 to 22, inclusive. 
Again, there was a law which guarded his 
people, whether free or bond, from per¬ 


sonal violence. If in vindictiveness, a man 
with an unlawful weapon, maimed his 
own slave by knocking out his eye, or his 
tooth, 1 the slave was to be free for this 
wanton act of personal violence, as a pen¬ 
alty upon the master. Exod. xxi. 26 to 27, 
inclusive. But for the same offence, com¬ 
mitted against a free person, the offender 
had to pay an eye for an eye, and a tooth 
for a tooth, as the penalty, Levit. xxiv. 19, 
20, and Exod. xxi. 24 and 25, inclusive. 
Again, there was a law to guard the per¬ 
sonal safety of the community against 
dangerous stock. If an ox, known to be 
dangerous, was suffered to run at laige 
and kill a person, if the person so killed 
was free, then the owner forfeited his life 
for his neglect, Exod. xxi. 29. But if 
the person so killed was a slave, then the 
offender was fined thirty shekels of silver. 
Exod. xxi. 33. In some things, slaves 
among the Israelites, as among us, were 
invested with privileges above hired serv¬ 
ants—they were privileged to eat the Pass- 
over, but hired servants were not, Exod. 
xii. 44, 45 ; and such as were owned by 
the priests and Levites were privileged to 
eat of the holy things of their masters, but 
hired servants dare not taste them. Levit. 
xxii. 10, 11. These are statutes from the 
Creator of man. They are certainly 
predicated upon a view of things, in the 
Divine mind, that is somewhat different from 
that which makes an abolitionist; and, to 
say the least, they deserve consideration 
with all men who worship the God of the 
Bible, and not the God of their own im¬ 
agination. They show very clearly, that 
our Creator is the author of social, moral, 
and political inequality among men. That 
so far from the Scriptures teaching, as 
abolitionists do, that all men have ever 
had a divine right to freedom and equality, 
they show, in so many words, that marriages 
were sanctioned of God as lawful, in which 
he enacted , that the children of free men 
should be born hereditary slaves. They 
show also, that he guarded the chastity of 
the free by the price of life, and the chas¬ 
tity of the slave by the rod. They show, 
that in the judgment of God, the life of a 
free man in the days of Moses, was too 
sacred for commutation, while a fine of 
thirty shekels of silver was sufficient to ex¬ 
piate for the death of a slave. As I said in 
my first essay, so I say now, this is a con¬ 
troversy between abolitionists and their 
Maker. I see not how, with their present 
views and in their present temper, they can 






















stop short of blasphemy against that Being 
who enacted these laws. 

Of late years, some obscure passages 
(which have no allusion whatever to the 
subject) have been brought forward to 
show, that God haled slavery , although the 
work of his own hands. Once for all, I 
challenge proof, that in the Old Testament 
or the New, any reproof was ever uttered 
against involuntary slavery , or against any 
abuse of its authority . Upon abolition 
principles, this is perfectly unaccountable, 
and of itself, is an unanswerable argument 
that the relation is not sinful. 

The opinion has been announced also of 
late, that slavery among the Jews was felt 
to be an evil, and, by degrees, that they 
abolished it. To ascertain the correctness 
of this opinion, let the following consid¬ 
erations be weighed : After centuries of 
cruel national bondage practised upon 
Abraham’s seed in Egypt, they were 
brought in godly contrition to pour out 
“ the effectual fervent prayer ” of a right¬ 
eous people, to the Almighty for mercy, 
and were answered by a covenant God, 
who sent Moses to deliver them from their 
bondage—but let it be remembered, that 
when this deliverance from bondage to the 
nation of Egypt was vouchsafed to them, 
they were extensive domestic slave-owners. 
God had not by his providential dealings, 
nor in any other way, shown them the sin 
of domestic slavery—for they held on to 
their slaves, and brought them out as their 
property into the wilderness. And it is 
worthy of further remark, that the Lord, 
before they left Egypt , recognized these 
slaves as property, which they had bought 
with their money, and that he secured to 
these slaves privileges above hired servants, 
simply because they were slaves. Exod. xii. 
44, 45. And let it be noticed further, that 
the first law passed by the Almighty after 
proclaiming the ten commandments or 
moral constitution of the nation, was a law 
to regulate property rights in hereditary 
slaves, and to regulate property rights in 
Jewish hired servants for a term of years. 
Exod. xxii. 1 to 6, inclusive. And let it be 
considered further, that when the Israelites 
were subjected to a cruel captivity in 
Babylon, more than eight hundred years 
after this, they were still extensive slave¬ 
owners ; that when humbled and brought 
'to repentance for their sins, and the Lord 
restored them to their own land again, 
that he brought them back to their old 
homes as slave-owners. Although greatly 


impoverished by a seventy years’ captivity 
in a foreign land, yet the slaves which they 
brought up from Babylon bore a propor¬ 
tion of nearly one slave for every five free 
persons that returned, or about one slave 
for every family. Ezra ii. 64, 65. Now, 
can we, in the face of these facts, believe 
they were tired of slavery when they came 
up out of Egypt ? It had then existed five 
hundred years. Or can we believe they 
were tired of it when they came up from 
Babylon ? It had then existed among them 
fourteen hundred years. Or can w r e be¬ 
lieve that God put them into these schools 
of affliction in Egypt and Babylon to teach 
them, (and all others through them,) the 
sinfulness of slavery, and yet, that he 
brought them out without giving them the 
first hint that involuntary slavery was a sin ? 
And let it be further considered, that it 
was the business of the prophets which 
the Lord raised up, to make known to them 
the sins for which his judgments were sent 
upon them. The sins which he charged 
upon them in all his visitation are upon rec¬ 
ord. Let any man find involuntary slavery 
in any of God’s indictments against them, 
and I will retract all I have ever written. 

In my original essay, I said nothing of 
Paul’s letter to Philemon, concerning 
Onesimus, a runaway slave, converted 
under Paul’s preaching at Rome; and who 
was returned by the Apostle, with a most 
affectionate letter to his master, entreating 
the master to receive him a^ain, and to 
forgive him. O, how immeasurably dif¬ 
ferent Paul’s conduct to this slave and his 
master, from the conduct of our abolition 
brethren ! Which are we to think is o-uided 

O 

by the Spirit of God ? It is impossible that 
both cau be guided by that spirit, unless 
sweet water and bitter can come from the 
same fountain. This letter, of itself, is 
sufficient to teach any man, capable of 
being taught in the ordinary way, that 
slavery is not, in the sight, of God , what it 
is in the sight of the abolitionists. 

I had prepared the argument furnished 
by this letter for my original essay; I 
afterwards struck it out, because at that 
time, so little had the Bible been examined 
at the North in reference to slavery, that 
the abolitionists very generally thought 
this was the only Scripture which southern 
slaveholders could find, giving any coun¬ 
tenance to their views of slavery. To test 
the correctness of this opinion, therefore, 
I determined to make no allusion to it at 
that time. 














Now, my dear sir, if, from the evidence 
•contained in the Bible to prove slavery a 
lawful relation among God’s people under 
every dispensation, the assertion is still 
made, in the very face of this evidence, 
that slavery has ever been the greatest sin— 
everywhere , and under all circumstances — 
can you, or can any sane man bring him¬ 
self to believe, that the mind capable of 
such a decision, is not capable of trampling 
the Word ot God under foot upon any sub¬ 
ject ? 

If it were not known to be the fact, we 
could not admit that a Bible-reading man 
could bring himself to believe, with Dr. 
Wayland, that a thing made lawful by the 
God of Heaven, was, notwithstanding, the 
greatest sin—and that Moses under the 
law, and Jesus Christ under the Gospel, 
had sanctioned and regulated in practice, 
the greatest sin known on earth—and that 
Jesus had left his church to find out as 
best they might, that the law of God which 
established slavery under the Old Testa¬ 
ment, and the precepts of the Holy Ghost 
which regulate the mutual duty of master 
and slave under the New Testament, were 
laws and precepts, to sanction and Regu¬ 
late among the people of God the greatest 
sin which was ever perpetrated. 

It is by no means strange that it should 
have taken seventeen centuries to make 
such discoveries as the above, and it is 
worthy of note, that these discoveries were 
made at last by men who did not appear 
to know, at the time they made them, what 
was in the Bible on the subject of slavery, 
and who now appear unwilling that the 
teachings of the Bible should be spread 
before the people—this last I take to be 
the case, because 1 have been unable to 
get the northern press to give it publicity. 

Many anti-slavery men into whose hands 
my essays chanced to fall, have frankly 
confessed to me, that in their Bible read¬ 
ing, they had overlooked the plain teaching 
of the Holy Ghost, by taking what they 
read in the Bible about masters and serv¬ 
ants, to have reference to hired servants 
and their employers. 

You ask me for my opinion about the 
emancipation movement in the State of 
Kentucky. I hold that the emancipation 
of hereditary slaves by a State is not com¬ 
manded, or in any way required by the 
Bible. The Old Testament and the New’, 
sanction slavery, but under no circum¬ 
stances enjoin its abolition, even among 
saints. Now, if religion, or the duty we 


owe our Creator, was inconsistent with 
slavery, then this could not be so. If pure 
religion, therefore, did not require its aboli¬ 
tion under the law of Moses, nor in the 
church of Christ—we may safely infer, that 
our political, moral, and social relations 
do not require it in a State ; unless a State 
requires higher moral, social, and religious 
qualities in its subjects, than a Gospel 
church. 

Masters have been left by the Almighty, 
both under the patriarchal, legal, and 
Gospel dispensations, to their individual 
discretion on the subject of emancipation. 

The principle of justice inculcated by 
the Bible, refuses to sanction, it seems to 
me, such an outrage upon the rights of 
men, as would be perpetrated by any sov¬ 
ereign State, which, to-day, makes a thing 
to be property, and to-morrow, takes it 
from the lawful owners, without political 
necessity or pecuniary compensation. Now, 
if it be morally right for a majority of the 
people (and that majority possibly a meagre 
one, who may not own a slave) to take, 
without necessity or compensation, the 
property in slaves held by a minority, (and 
that minority a large one,) then it would 
be morally right for a majority, without 
property, to take anything else that may 
be lawfully owned by the prudent and 
care-taking portion of the citizens. 

As for intelligent philanthropy, it shud¬ 
ders at the infliction of certain ruin upon 
a whole race of helpless beings. If eman¬ 
cipation by law is philanthropic in Ken¬ 
tucky, it is, for the same reasons, philan¬ 
thropic in every State in the Union. But 
nothing in the future is more certain, than 
that such emancipation would beoin to 
work the degradation and final ruin of the 
slave race, from the day of its consumma¬ 
tion. 

Break the master’s sympathy, which is 
inseparably connected with his property 
right in his slave, and that moment the 
slave race is placed upon a common level 
with all other competitors for the rewards 
of merit; but as the slaves are inferior in 
the qualities which give success amono- 
competitors in our country, extreme pov¬ 
erty would be their lot; and for the want 
of means to rear families, they would mul¬ 
tiply slowly, and die out by inches, de¬ 
graded by vice and crime, unpitied by 
honest and virtuous men, and heartbroken 
by sufferings without a parallel. 

So long as States let masters alone on 
this subject, good men among them, both 

















32 


in the church and out of it, will struggle 
on, as experience may diciate and justify, 
for the benefitof the slave race. And should 
the time ever come, when emancipation in 
its consequences, will comport with the 
moral, social, and political obligations of 
Christianity, then Christian masters will 


invest their slaves with freedom, and then 
will the good-will of those follow the de¬ 
scendants ofHam, who, without any agency 
of their own, have been made in this land 
of liberty, their providential guardians. 

Yours, with affection, 

THORNTON STRINGFELLOW. 


Washington: Printed at the Congressional Globe Office, for the Publishers. New edition, 1850. 




/ 










































ssaaoNOO do xauaain 









